/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200403.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, April 3, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 68
Headlines
ALIBABA GROUP: Chao Appeals Order/Judgment in Christine Asia Suit
ALPHA AND OMEGA: Financial Reports Misleading, Gray Claims
AMAZON.COM: Frame-Wilson Sues over Anticompetitive Price Policy
AMERICAN AXLE: Hoaglan Sues over Unpaid OT Pay and Regular Wages
APOLLO GLOBAL: Funds Sues Over Onerous Acquisition Deal
ARCADIA HEALTH PHARMACY: Ren Alleges Unlawful Wages
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Faces Chupa Securities Suit in California
ASCENSION HEALTH ALLIANCE: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Associates
ATECH LOGISTICS: Removes Wright Suit to Oregon Federal Court
AUBREY'S RESTAURANT: Darga Sues Over Gender Pay Gap
AUTO INJURY SOLUTIONS: Quinn Seeks Overtime Pay for PHAD Nurses
AWS TELECOM: Crum et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Technicians
BAUSCH HEALTH: Afexa-Related Class Action Ongoing
BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement in Contact Lens Antitrust Suit Pending
BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement in Valeant Pharma Suit Awaits Final Okay
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Cabrera Seeks to Certify Classes
BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS: Colpitts Alleges Deceptive Product Marketing
BOBBY HOTEL: Cattie Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Servers, Bartenders
CAPITAL ONE: Sued by Broderick for Putting at Risk Customer Data
CASA CASUARINA: Chaparro Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
CEMPLEX GROUP: Fails to Pay OT to Construction Staff, Montoya Says
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Appeal in Suit over Vectren Merger Pending
CENTERSTATE BANK: South State Merger Lacks Info, Parshall Claims
CHINA: Faces Class Suit in Texas Over COVID-19 Outbreak
CHINA: Nevada Businesses Sue over COVID-19 Outbreak
CITIZENS AND FARMERS: Minter Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
D&M SERVE: Camacho-Bias Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
DERREL'S MINI: $1.45MM Deal in Kutzman Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
DIRECT DELIVERY SERVICE: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Evans Claims
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Boyle Claims
DOUYU INT'L: IPO Documents Contain Misleading Info, Liang Claims
EATON CORPORATION: Tolbert Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ENDO INT'L: Pelletier Class Action Ongoing
ENDO INT'L: Settlement in Bier Suit Wins Final Approval
ENDO INT'L: Settlement in Suit Over Zetia Sales Awaits Approval
ENLOE MEDICAL: Alizadeh et al Sue over Data Theft
ENTERPRISE RESTORATION: Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
FBCS INC: Hill Sues in E.D. New York Alleging Violation of FDCPA
FREDDY MASVEYRAUD: Dressel Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Burkhart et al. Class Action Underway
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Skochin Final Approval Hearing Set for July 10
GT PIZZA: Rhoden Seeks Proper Wages for Pizza Delivery Drivers
GTS TRANSPORTATION: Plestsov et al. Seek Proper Wages for Drivers
HALAL GUYS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Alcazar Claims
HELP AT HOME CT: Lekuntwane Seeks Overtime Pay for Caregivers
HEXCEL CORP: Fischman Says Woodward Merger Docs Lack Info
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Rouse Suit Over Identity Theft, Card Fraud
HUAXCUAXTLA RESTAURANT: Molina et al. Seek OT Pay for Employees
HY-VEE INC: Fails to Secure Consumers' PII, Davis Suit Alleges
IBEAT INC: Faces Katz Chiropratic TCPA Suit in C.D. California
INSPIRED CLOSETS: McCloud Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Employees
J.P. MORGAN: Taschler Sues Over Debt Collection Calls
JOZON ENTERPRISES: Pavao Sues Over Unfair Wages for Delivery Staff
JPMORGAN CHASE: Carrillo Labor Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
KODAKO INC: Baker Seeks OT Pay for Bakers, Drivers & Cashiers
LANDING STRIP: Juarez Sues over Unpaid OT Pay, Misclassification
LIBRETTOS ON 3RD: Cali Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Rosenberg Suit
LOGICBIO THERAPEUTICS: Afinowicz Sues over Securities Losses
LOUISIANA: 2003 Judgment Remains Unpaid, Perrin Claims
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grove and Garcia Claim
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Underpays Hourly Managers, Ester & Rookey Claim
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Underpays Hourly Managers, Fitzsimmons et al Say
LUMBERJAXES: Deducts Tips From Axe-Throwing Coaches, Arnold Claims
LVNV FUNDING: Faces Hill Suit over Debt Collection Violation
MALLINCKRODT PLC: 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund's Suit Underway
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Suit Still Ongoing
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces Castillo Class Suit in E.D. Pa.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in D.C.
MARINER FINANCE: Final Approval of Hale Suit Settlement Upheld
MARRIOTT INT'L: Suits Over Data Security Breach Underway
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Claims
MCCARTHY FORD: Patterson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Acts
MGM RESORTS: Cameron Hits Data Breach, Compromised Guest Info
MOUNTAIN WEST FARM: Drange Suit Removed to District of Montana
NATIONAL CAR CURE: Day Sues over Robocalls
NATIOWIDE MUTUAL: Sued by Sweeney for Violating Duty Under ERISA
NP INC: Faces McKinley Suit Over Robocalls
NRG ENERGY: Suits Against XOOM Ongoing in Maryland & New York
NUVISION FEDERAL CREDIT: McMullin Sues Over Robocalls
PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Miskokomon Sues Over Robocalls
PATRIZIA'S RESTAURANT: Chavez Seeks OT for Food Preparers & Cooks
PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Taggart Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Suits Related to Line 901 Incident Ongoing
PLS FINANCIAL: Bid to Compel Discovery in Vine Suit Partly Granted
POPE RESOURCES: Thompson Securities Suit Balks at Rayonier Sale
PORTABLE MUD SYSTEMS: Douglas Seeks OT Pay fr Oil Field Mechanics
PORTABLE MUD SYSTEMS: Overbey Seeks OT Pay for Oil Field Mechanics
PRESTO FRESH CAFE: Rodriguez Diaz et al. Allege Unfair Labor Acts
PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT: Branch Sues over Robocalls
RETAIL RECOVERY: Twyman Suit Seeks Approval of Settlement
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Queen Sues Over Trading Platform Outages
ROSSOMELA INC: Ruiz Torres Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
RTI SURGICAL HOLDINGS: Lowry Sues Over 14% Drop in Share Price
SANTEE, SC: Hopkins Sues over OT Pay, Wrongful Termination
SC EDISON COMPANY: Bohlke Sues over Derogatory Credit Reports
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Misclassifies OTR Truck Drivers, Warwick Says
SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal of Calif. Securities Action under Appeal
SEMPRA ENERGY: June 24 Trial Set in Aliso Canyon Leak Litigation
SEMPRA ENERGY: Property & Business Class Suits Ongoing in Calif.
SEQUIUM ASSET: Cross Sues in M.D. Florida Over Violation of FDCPA
SHASTA BEVERAGES: Class Certification Bid in Garcia Suit Shelved
SOBE USA: Menoscal Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
SPROUTS FARMERS: 4 Claimants in Phishing Suit to Start Arbitration
ST LOGISTICS: Delivery Drivers Class Certified in Barricelli Suit
STURM RUGER: Palmer Class Suit Awaits Dismissal Order
STURM RUGER: Primus Group Has Yet to File Initial Appeal Brief
SYNEOS HEALTH: Awaits Ruling on Show Cause Order in Murakami Suit
SYNEOS HEALTH: Vaitkuviene Class Action Remain Stayed
TASCA DE ESPANA: Rojas Sues Over Overtime Pay, Retaliation
TAYLOR MCKENSIE: Batch Sues over Unpaid OT Pay, Misclassification
TD BANK: Manship Says Fees for Billing Statement Requests Illegal
TELEFONICA BRASIL: Appeal in SISTEL Class Action Still Ongoing
TELEFONICA BRASIL: FENAPAS Class Suit Referred to Federal Courts
TEVERBAUGH EQUIPMENT: Bassman Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: April 27 Trial Set for Guardrail Class Suit
TRUSTMARK CORP: Appeal to Intervene in Stanford Suit Still Pending
UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Hughes Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending
VALLEY NATIONAL: Urena Sues Over Collection of Overdraft Fees
VIACOMCBS INC: Bucks County Fund Files Merger-Related Class Action
VIACOMCBS INC: CalPERS Named as Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
WARNER BROS: O'Connor Seeks Overtime Pay for Animators
WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Appeal in Smallen Suit Still Pending
WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit in Evidentiary Stage
WESTERN UNION: Frazier Class Suit Still Stayed Pending Arbitration
WHITE GLOVE COMMUNITY: Underpays Home Health Aides, Phipps Claims
WILSON COMPANY: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Boynton Claims
ZOETIS INC: Knapp Sues over Excede Drug's Side Effects to Horses
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel's Appeal in Oklahoma Case Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Units Remain Defendants in Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $43.8MM A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 6,480 Claims Still Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 209 Cases Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Ltd. Had $1.5BB Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Suit vs. Aqua-Chem Still Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 16,299 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $273MM Accrual at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Had $1.1MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had $222.9MM Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Had 10,400 Claims Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Paid $153MM to Honeywell in 2019
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Units Still Face Exposure Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,233 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morse TEC Holds $662.5MM A&E Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Faces Exposure Claims at Jan. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Posts $79.2MM Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 592 Exposure Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy Had 275 Suits Pending at Feb. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Had $2.2MM Reserves at December 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Had 500 Cases in US and 50 in Europe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 346 Pending Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Had $3.1MM A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $76MM Libby Costs at December 31
*********
ALIBABA GROUP: Chao Appeals Order/Judgment in Christine Asia Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Myrtle Tan Chao filed an appeal from the District Court's
Decision and Order, and Judgment, both issued on October 16, 2019,
in the lawsuit titled Christine Asia Co. Ltd., et al. v. Ma, et
al., Case No. 15-md-2631, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).
The appellate case is captioned as Christine Asia Co. Ltd., et al.
v. Ma, et al., Case No. 19-3823, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., disclosed that the District Court has approved an
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit purchasers of securities of Alibaba Group Holding Limited
(BABA).
The Class is defined as:
All persons and/or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Alibaba Group Holding Limited ("Alibaba") American
Depositary Shares ("ADS"), or purchased call options or sold
put options on Alibaba ADS, during the period September 19,
2014 through January 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), other than those shares purchased directly in the
September 19, 2014 Initial Public Offering (the "Class").
Plaintiff-Appellant Myrtle Tan Chao, of San Gabriel, California,
appears pro se.[BN]
Defendant-Appellee Alibaba Group Holding Limited is represented
by:
George S. Wang, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: 212-455-2000
E-mail: gwang@stblaw.com
ALPHA AND OMEGA: Financial Reports Misleading, Gray Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, DARRYL GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. ALPHA AND OMEGA SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED; MIKE
F. CHANG; and YIFAN LIANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02414
(S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Alpha and Omega securities between August 7, 2019 and
February 5, 2020, alleges that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's business, operations,
and prospects. The Defendants' omissions, wrongful conduct, and the
decline of Alpha and Omega's stock price caused losses to the
Plaintiff and class members.
Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Ltd. is a Hamilton, Bermuda-based
designer, developer, and supplier of power semiconductors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
AMAZON.COM: Frame-Wilson Sues over Anticompetitive Price Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON and CHRISTIAN SABOL, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424 (W.D. Wash., March 19,
2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Sherman Act, federal antitrust law, and consumer protection
statutes.
According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in
anticompetitive conduct by enforcing horizontal price-fixing
agreement with its third-party sellers to prevent them from
lowering their prices to online customers reached outside the
Amazon.com platform. The Defendant's price policy harms the
Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated consumers because it caused
them to overpay for consumer goods purchased online.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer based in Seattle,
Washington. It maintains Amazon Marketplace, an e-commerce
platform. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: Dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
AMERICAN AXLE: Hoaglan Sues over Unpaid OT Pay and Regular Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE HOAGLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00425-PP (E.D. Wis., March 19, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendant for failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all other similarly-situated non-exempt employees
overtime wages and agreed-upon regular wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of pattern repair and machine
operator at Wauwatosa, Wisconsin foundry location in approximately
March 2019.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. is a Detroit, Michigan-based
automotive supplier that designs, engineers, and manufactures
systems and technologies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
APOLLO GLOBAL: Funds Sues Over Onerous Acquisition Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Frank Funds, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Apollo Global Management, Inc., SJL Partners LLC, KCC
Corporation, Wonik Holdings Co., Ltd., Mom Holding Company, John G.
Boss, Samuel Feinstein, Robert Kaslowramos, Scott M. Kleinman,
Marvin O. Schlanger and Jeffrey M. Nodland, Defendants, Case No.
2020-0130 (D. Del., February 25, 2020), seeks to recover damages on
behalf of MPM Holdings Inc.'s former public stockholders and to
hold Apollo, members of the MPM Board and the consortium made up of
SJL Partners LLC, KCC Corporation, Wonik Holdings Co., Ltd. and MOM
Holding Company accountable for breach of fiduciary duty.
The consortium acquired MPM for $32.50 per share in cash. Funds
allege that the merger resulted from an unreasonable sale process
where the consortium proceeded to repeatedly lower its bids for the
company and engaged in confidential negotiations with other
parties. The merger consideration actually represented a discount
to MPM's recent over-the-counter trading prices. MPM common stock
closed at $42.00 per share, a 29% premium to the deal price, on the
last trading day prior to the merger announcement.
Apollo is a private equity firm that invests in portfolio companies
through funds with an intended life-span of about ten years. It had
an investment in MPM. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Schwartz, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Tel: (212) 907-0700
Email: dschwartz@labaton.com
- and -
Thomas Curry, Esq.
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
Derrick Farrell, Esq.
Thomas Curry, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 573-2530
Email: nweinberger@labaton.com
dfarrell@labaton.com
- and -
Eric M. Andersen, Esq.
ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC
Two Mill Road
Wilmington, DE 19808
Tel: (302) 595-9102
Email: eric@andersensleater.com
ARCADIA HEALTH PHARMACY: Ren Alleges Unlawful Wages
---------------------------------------------------
XIAOLING REN Individually and on Behalf of All Other Employees
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff(s), -against- ARCADIA HEALTH
PHARMACY, CORP., YUAN KING YUNG a/k/a RICKY YUNG, JIA YING HE,
DORIS ZHANG, JOHN WANG and John Doe and Jane Doe Defendant(s), Case
No. 2:20-cv-01470 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of
failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.
Plaintiff Xiaoling Ren was employed by Defendants as an assistant
from on or about June 2, 2014 to February 23, 2020.
Arcadia Health Pharmacy, Corp. is a New York-based medical retail
store. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hui Chen, Esq.
Hui Chen and Associates, P.L.L.C.
136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 463-2666
Email: hui.chen@alum.cardozo.yu.edu
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Faces Chupa Securities Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CHUPA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ARMSTRONG FLOORING, INC., MICHEL VERMETTE, DONALD
MAIER, LARRY McWILLIAMS, DOUGLAS BINGHAM, and RONALD FORD, Case No.
2:19-cv-09840 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2019), is brought to pursue
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 alleging that they issued materially false and/or misleading
statements.
The class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons, including
the Plaintiff, and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Armstrong Flooring securities between March 6, 2018, and November
4, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
On May 3, 2019, Armstrong Flooring's Chief Executive Officer
abruptly resigned. On this news, the Company's stock price fell
$1.75, nearly 12%, to close at $13.14 per share on May 3, 2019, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
On November 5, 2019, before the market opened, the Company reported
$165.6 million net sales for third quarter 2019, a nearly 21%
decline year-over-year, and a net loss of $31.4 million. The
Company also cut its full year 2019 guidance for adjusted EBITDA to
a range of $20 million to $25 million, from prior guidance range of
$46 million to $54 million. On this news, the Company's stock
price fell $2.90 per share, or nearly 44%, to close at $3.70 per
share on November 5, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had engaged
in channel stuffing to artificially boost sales; (2) that the
Company's internal control over inventory levels was not effective;
and (3) that, as a result, the Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the Plaintiff argues.
Armstrong Flooring is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with
its principal executive offices located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.
Armstrong Flooring manufactures and sells resilient and wood
flooring products primarily used in the construction and renovation
of commercial, residential, and institutional buildings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
ASCENSION HEALTH ALLIANCE: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Associates
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLA SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH ALLIANCE d/b/a ASCENSION
LIVING, and ALEXIAN VILLAGE OF MILWAUKEE, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00421-JPS (E.D. Wis., March 17, 2020) is a collective
and class action complaint brought against Defendants for their
alleged unlawful compensation system in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws.
Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Alexian Village in approximately
June 2014 as Certified Nursing Assistant, an hourly-paid non-exempt
job position. He is still currently working with Defendant Alexian
although Alexian has been bought by Defendant Ascension within the
3 years immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.
The complaint asserts that because of Defendants' practice of
shaving time from employee's timesheets by impermissibly rounding
recorded hours of work for their own benefit, Defendants have
deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other
hourly-paid, non-exempt Associates for work performed each
workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Ascension Health Alliance provides health care services.
Alexian Village of Milwaukee, Inc. is an assisted living facility
in Milwauke, Wisconsin which offers activities that allow residents
to maintain healthy lifestyles by encouraging movement and
socializing with their peers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Tel: (262)780-1953
Fax: (262)565-6469
Emails: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
ATECH LOGISTICS: Removes Wright Suit to Oregon Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ALEX WRIGHT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. ATECH
LOGISTICS, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of
Multnomah (Case No. 19CV56327) to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon on March 20, 2020. The clerk of court for the
District of Oregon assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00469-SB.
The case alleges unpaid overtime pay and wrongful deductions in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Oregon employment
laws.
ATECH Logistics, Inc. is a California-based provider of logistics
services doing business in Multnomah County, Oregon. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brad S. Daniels, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
Portland, OR 97205
Telephone: (503) 224-3380
Facsimile: (503) 220-2480
E-mail: brad.daniels@stoel.com
- and -
Adam C. Smedstad, Esq.
SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY P.C.
3214 W. McGraw Street, Suite 301F
Seattle, WA 98199
Telephone: (206) 288-6192
Facsimile: (206) 299-9375
E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com
AUBREY'S RESTAURANT: Darga Sues Over Gender Pay Gap
---------------------------------------------------
Melissa Darga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aubrey's Restaurant Group, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-00183, (E.D. Tenn., February 26, 2020) seeks to recover
back pay, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act including damages resulting from
discrimination under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Civil Rights Act of
1964, Americans with Disabilities Act and the Tennessee Disability
Act.
Defendants operate interrelated restaurant establishments and
concepts, including but not limited to, Aubrey's, Sunspot, Barley's
Maryville, Drink, Bistro By The Tracks, Fieldhouse Social and
Stefano's Pizza. Darga was employed as General Manager since 2018
and claims that she was consistently paid less than her male
colleagues who had the same title and performed the same work.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Burkhalter, II, Esq.
D. Alexander Burkhalter, III, Esq.
Zachary J. Burkhalter, Esq.
THE BURKHALTER LAW FIRM, P.C.
111 S. Central Street
P.O. Box 2777
Knoxville, TN 37901-2777
Tel: (865) 524-4974
Fax: (865) 524-0172
AUTO INJURY SOLUTIONS: Quinn Seeks Overtime Pay for PHAD Nurses
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN QUINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AUTO INJURY SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01966 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2020) is a collective
action brought by individual and Plaintiff, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, to recover overtime pay from the
Defendant and any other related entities, subsidiaries, or
affiliates for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a National Nurse
Reviewer from approximately October 2016 to June 2019. In June
2019, Defendant transitioned Plaintiff into the position of PHAD
Nurse, where she worked until October 25, 2019. Regardless of the
variation in job title, Plaintiff performed the same general duties
for Defendant, which consisted of performing medical necessity
reviews.
According to the complaint, Defendant knew that Plaintiff and the
putative FLSA Collective worked unpaid overtime hours because
Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Collective complained about their
long hours and workload. Specifically, Plaintiff complained to her
supervisor that she was required to work nine or 10 hours a day to
meet Defendant's production quotas.
Auto Injury Solutions, Inc. is national company that offers
customizable, end-to-end medical review solutions to auto insurance
carriers in all 50 states for medical claims resulting from
automobile accidents involving first and/or third-party injury
coverage(s). [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
POTTER BOLANOS LLC
111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 861-1800
Facsimile: (312) 861-3009
Email: nieves@potterlaw.org
– and –
Reena I. Desai, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
Email: rdesai@nka.com
AWS TELECOM: Crum et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Technicians
----------------------------------------------------------
HARRISON CRUM, BRADY ELLIOTT, TROY RICHARDSON, AND DAYTON VEST on
behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. AWS TELECOM, LLC D/B/A AWS COMMUNICATIONS, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00300-RP (W.D. Tex., March 20, 2020) arises from
the denial of the Defendant to pay certain non-exempt employees
including the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals for
hours worked and for overtime as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as technicians.
AWS Telecom LLC is an innovative communications technology provider
offering a full suite of communications infrastructure design and
installation. [BN]
The Plaintiffs were represented by:
Kell A. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF KELL A. SIMON
501 North IH-35, Suite 111
Austin, TX 78702
Telephone: (512) 898-9662
Facsimile: (512) 368-9144
BAUSCH HEALTH: Afexa-Related Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend the lawsuit over alleged false representation
of Cold-FX(R) drug.
On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which sought an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa Life Sciences Inc. ("Afexa") (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954).
The proposed claim asserted that Afexa and the Company made false
representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to residents of British
Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period and
that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result.
On November 8, 2013, the plaintiff served an amended notice of
civil claim which sought to re-characterize the representation
claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed. On
December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain
elements of the plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of
action.
In response, the plaintiff proposed further amendments to its
claim. The hearing on the motion to strike and the plaintiff's
amended claim was held on February 4, 2015. The Court allowed
certain additional subsequent amendments, while it struck others.
The hearing to certify the class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and,
on November 16, 2016, the Court issued a decision dismissing the
plaintiff’s application for certification of this action as a
class proceeding.
On December 15, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the
British Columbia Court of Appeal appealing the decision to dismiss
the application for certification. The plaintiff filed its appeal
factum on March 15, 2017 and the Company filed its appeal factum on
April 19, 2017. The appeal hearing was held on September 19, 2017
and, on April 30, 2018, the British Columbia Court of Appeal
dismissed the appeal.
On June 29, 2018, the plaintiff filed leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada in this matter and, on February 7, 2019,
the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to
appeal with costs.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement in Contact Lens Antitrust Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
is awaiting the court's decision of the settlement fairness hearing
in the class action suit entitled, In re Disposable Contact Lens
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK.
Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L Inc.,
three other contact lens manufacturers, and a contact lens
distributor, alleging that the defendants engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price competition on certain
contact lens lines through the use of unilateral pricing policies,
and alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.
These cases have been consolidated in the Middle District of
Florida by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, under
the caption In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK.
On August 19, 2019, B&L Inc. entered into a settlement, subject to
court approval, by which it agreed to pay $10 million to fully and
finally resolve plaintiffs' class claims against B&L Inc. in the
case. On October 8, 2019, the settlement agreement was
preliminarily approved by the court.
A final fairness hearing regarding the settlement has been
scheduled for February 25, 2020.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Settlement in Valeant Pharma Suit Awaits Final Okay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Company
has reached a deal to settle, subject to final court approval, the
consolidated securities class action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658).
In October 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against
the Company and certain current or former officers and directors.
The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company’s business and prospects, including relating to drug
pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the
Company's relationship with Philidor.
On May 31, 2016, the court entered an order consolidating the four
actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658. On
June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the Company, and certain current or former officers and
directors, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain current or
former officers and directors, and certain other parties. The lead
plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased the Company’s equity securities and
senior notes in the United States between January 4, 2013 and March
15, 2016, including all those who purchased the Company’s
securities in the United States in the Company’s debt and stock
offerings between July 2013 to March 2015. On September 13, 2016,
the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On April 28, 2017, the court dismissed
certain claims arising out of the Company's private placement
offerings and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss. On September
20, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding claims
against ValueAct Capital Management L.P. and affiliated entities
("ValueAct"). On October 31, 2018, a third-party defendant,
ValueAct, filed a motion to dismiss. On June 30, 2019, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss and ValueAct has filed for
interlocutory appeal of this decision.
On December 16, 2019, the Company, the current or former officers
and directors, ValueAct, and the underwriters announced that they
agreed to resolve the securities action for $1,210 million, subject
to final court approval. Once approved by the court, the settlement
will resolve and discharge all claims against the Company in the
class action. As part of the settlement, the Company and the other
settling defendants admitted no liability as to the claims against
it and deny all allegations of wrongdoing. The opt-out litigations
related to this matter discussed above remain ongoing. On January
10, 2020, the Company made a payment of $200 million into an escrow
fund under the terms of the settlement agreement. On January 27,
2020 the court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled
the final settlement approval hearing for May 27, 2020. The balance
of the settlement will be paid in accordance with the payment
schedule outlined in the settlement agreement.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Cabrera Seeks to Certify Classes
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CAMILLE CABRERA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
LLC and BAYER CORPORATION, Case 2:17-cv-08525-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.,
March 19, 2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying these proposed Classes;
Regular Gummies Class:
"all persons who purchased any FlintstonesTM Gummies
Complete Children's Multivitamin Supplement, which did not
include Vitamins B1, Vitamin B2 , Vitamin B3, and Vitamin
K, in California at any time from November 22, 2013 until
the present"; and
Sour Gummies Class:
"all persons who purchased any FlintstonesTM Sour Gummies
Complete Children's Multivitamin Supplement, which did not
Vitamins B1, Vitamin B2, Vitamin B3, and Vitamin K, in
California at any time from November 22, 2013 until
December 31, 2017";
2. designating Plaintiff as Class representative; and
3. appointing Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and the Wand Law Firm,
P.C. as Class counsel.
The Plaintiff's theory of the case is straightforward and provable
on a class-wide basis: Bayer's "Complete" representation on its
Flintstones Gummies multivitamin products deceives reasonable
consumers into believing the products contain a complete profile of
vitamins when they are missing four of the 13 vitamins.
All Class members have been uniformly exposed to the deceptive
"Complete" representation because the word "Complete" was
prominently displayed on the front of the Products' labels during
the entirety of both Class Periods, the Plaintiff contends.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Classes are:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQUI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
E-mail: jnassir@faruqilaw.com
bheikali@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Aubry Wand, Esq.
WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
400 Corporate Pointe, Ste 300
Culver City, CA 90230-7620
Telephone: (310) 590-4503
Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com
BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS: Colpitts Alleges Deceptive Product Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Colpitts, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, - against - Blue Diamond Growers,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02487 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2020)
alleges that the Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells almonds purporting to obtain their flavor through
actually being smoked under the Blue Diamond Almonds brand.
The Defendant fails to put the consumer on notice that the Product
is not actually smoked and that its smoke taste is due exclusively
to added smoke flavor though the term "Smokehouse" has a trademark
designation next to the Product's name. By not including any
qualifying terms preceding, following or in proximity to
"Smokehouse," consumers will expect the Product contains sufficient
smoke flavor from actually being smoked and does not contain
flavors which imitate actual smoking but have no relation to a
"Smokehouse."
Blue Diamond Growers is a California agricultural cooperative and
marketing organization that specializes in almonds. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd Ste 311
Great Neck NY 11021-5101
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
BOBBY HOTEL: Cattie Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Servers, Bartenders
------------------------------------------------------------------
CASEY CATTIE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CASTLEROCK HOSPITALITY EMPLOYEES LLC and
CASTLEROCK HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LLC, d/b/a BOBBY HOTEL,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00237 (M.D. Tenn., March 19, 2020) is
a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Bobby Hotel as a server from January 2019
until she was informed that she was being laid off by Bobby Hotel
because of its own financial condition on or around March 17,
2020.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant failed to pay him and other servers
and bartenders, who were also laid off for the same reason, for all
accrued paid time off hours which they earned throughout their
employment and which Defendant agreed to pay to them in the event
they were not terminated for cause.
Moreover, Plaintiff alleges Defendants of breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.
Castlerock Hospitality Employees LLC and Castlerock Hospitality
Management LLC are both Tennessee limited liability companies which
own and operate the Bobby Hotel located in Nashville, Tennessee.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Tel: (615)244-2202
Fax: (615)252-3798
Emails: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
CAPITAL ONE: Sued by Broderick for Putting at Risk Customer Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW BRODERICK, JACQUELINE BURKE, SUSAN CORLEY, LYNN FIELDS,
KIMBERLY HERNANDEZ, KRISTINA MENTONE, MARK MILLER, MORDECHAI NEMES,
RYAN OLSEN, DEBRA POTZGO, SHAWN SPEARS, JANETT STOUT, COLE
STUDEBAKER, and JONATHAN WONG, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) N.A., AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01454 (E.D. Va., Nov. 15, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants have put at risk sensitive Capital One
customer data, including the Plaintiffs' data.
According to the complaint, in March 2019, Capital One was the
subject of one of the largest data thefts in history. The
attacker, a former employee of Amazon Web Services, was caught and
indicted. As information came to light about the nature of the
attack, a striking set of facts began to emerge--not about the
attacker, but about Capital One and Amazon. They had together,
over several years, orchestrated a massive migration of highly
sensitive data to a public cloud under the cover of false
statements and Potemkin security software that Capital One and
Amazon jointly created and jointly marketed to customers,
regulators, and to the public as a means of keeping the data safe.
But it was all a lie--and unbelievably, the precise conditions
created by the Defendants that gave rise to the March data theft
persist to this day, the Plaintiffs allege.
The case is about a fraud by Capital One and Amazon--not the data
theft that revealed it, the Plaintiffs tell the Court. And at base,
it is about millions of Capital One customers, who entrusted their
most sensitive data--data that can be used by a thief to assume
those customers' economic identity--to a bank and a cloud computing
company based on a lie. Capital One and Amazon thoroughly
monetized (and continue to monetize) sensitive Capital One customer
data, mining it for every edge and insight about the behavior of
Capital One's customers.
The Plaintiffs note that in order to obtain that data and the
lucrative interest and fees those customers generated, Capital One
promised customers that their data was safe and protected. Both
Capital One and Amazon assured people around the country that this
was the case. The Plaintiffs assert that those assurances have now
been shown to be indisputably, willfully false and misleading--and
they continue to be false, as were the statements the Defendants
made together over the years about the safety of Amazon's AWS
public cloud for storage and processing of sensitive financial
data.
As a result of these lies, the Plaintiffs say they have paid
billions of dollars in interest and fees to Capital One that they
never would have paid had they known the truth: their sensitive
personal data was being pooled in a giant "data lake" on the
world's most notoriously insecure public cloud, trawled by machine
learning tools while at risk of theft via a well-known, unfixed
Server Side Request Forgery ("SSRF") attack vector. The Plaintiffs
argue that the Defendants know that there is no setting they can
change, or automated software they can write, to eliminate the
risks that they intentionally force on their customers. The
Plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction ordering the removal of
sensitive Capital One customer data from Amazon's public cloud
servers.
Capital One Financial Corporation is a Delaware corporation with
its principal executive offices located in McLean, Virginia.
Capital One a financial services holding company that offers an
array of financial products and services to consumers, small
businesses, and commercial clients, including the credit card
products at issue in this lawsuit.
Capital One Bank (USA), National Association ("COBNA") is a
national bank headquartered in Glen Allen, Virginia. COBNA offers
credit and debit card products, including the credit card products
at issue in this lawsuit, as well as other lending and deposit
products. COBNA is one of Defendant Capital One's principal wholly
owned subsidiaries.
Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon.com") is a corporation existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware with its headquarters and principal
place of business located in Seattle, Washington. Amazon Web
Services, Inc. ("AWS") is a corporation existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware with its headquarters and principal place of
business located in Seattle. AWS is a subsidiary of Amazon.com.
Virginia is the largest market for data center space in the United
States, and AWS maintains large data centers throughout the state.
AWS operates its Virginia data centers directly or through a
subsidiary called Vadata, Inc., which has operations in Ashburn,
Haymarket, Manassas, Warrenton, Lorton, Culpeper, and Chantilly,
VA. Either directly or through Vadata, Amazon leases 3.5 million
square feet of space in Northern Virginia for its data
centers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew M. Williamson, Esq.
Andrew J. Pecoraro, Esq.
PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
South Tower, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: 202-318-9001
Facsimile: 202-463-2103
E-mail: awilliamson@piercebainbridge.com
apecoraro@piercebainbridge.com
- and -
Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
Michael M. Pomerantz, Esq.
David Hecht, Esq.
Maxim Price, Esq.
Michael K. Eggenberger, Esq.
PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP
277 Park Avenue, 45th Floor
New York, NY 10172
Telephone: (212) 484-9866
E-mail: ybathaee@piercebainbridge.com
dhecht@piercebainbridge.com
mprice@piercebainbridge.com
mpomerantz@piercebainbridge.com
meggenberger@piercebainbridge.com
- and -
Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, 44th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 262-9333
E-mail: bdunne@piercebainbridge.com
CASA CASUARINA: Chaparro Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, CINTHYA V. CHAPARRO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. VMSB, LLC d/b/a CASA CASUARINA, d/b/a
GIANNI'S, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-21219-BB (S.D. Fla., March
20, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff
overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half her regular rate
for every hour that she worked in excess of 40 per week in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a waitress at Casa
Casuarina restaurant at 1116, Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Florida
from about February 07, 2019 through approximately October 04,
2019.
VMSB, LLC is an Italian/Mediterranean restaurant operator located
at 1116, Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. It is also doing
business as Casa Casuarina and Gianni's. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
CEMPLEX GROUP: Fails to Pay OT to Construction Staff, Montoya Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CESAR MONTOYA, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. CEMPLEX GROUP FLORIDA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
6:20-cv-00509-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla., March 23, 2020) is an action
brought by the Plaintiff to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages under the laws of the United States and in pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a construction
worker and a nonexempt, full time, hourly employee from December
05, 2017 to July 25, 2019.
Cemplex Group Florida, LLC is an American construction company
providing gypsum underlayment, waterproofing, floor leveling, sound
control, and related services to the construction industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Appeal in Suit over Vectren Merger Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
plaintiffs' appeal from a ruling in the consolidated class action
suit related to its merger deal with Vectren Corp. is still
pending.
On February 1, 2019, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, CenterPoint
Energy consummated the previously announced Merger and acquired
Vectren for approximately $6 billion in cash. On the Merger Date,
Vectren became a wholly-owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy.
With respect to the Merger, in July 2018, seven separate lawsuits
were filed against Vectren and the individual directors of
Vectren's Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.
These lawsuits alleged violations of Sections 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 on the grounds that the Vectren Proxy
Statement filed on June 18, 2018 was materially incomplete because
it omitted material information concerning the Merger.
In August 2018, the seven lawsuits were consolidated, and the Court
denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. In
October 2018, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint.
In December 2018, two plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuits.
In September 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the remaining plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice, which the plaintiffs appealed in October 2019.
The defendants believe that the allegations asserted are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims
raised.
CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of this
matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. wholesales natural gas and
energy products. The Company gathers, processes, and treats natural
gas and electricity, as well as provides administrative support.
CenterPoint Energy Resources operates in the United States. The
company is based in Houston, Texas.
CENTERSTATE BANK: South State Merger Lacks Info, Parshall Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTERSTATE BANK CORPORATION,
ERNEST S. PINNER, CHARLES W. MCPHERSON, JAMES H. BINGHAM, MICHAEL
J. BROWN SR., CHARLES DENNIS CARLTON, MICHAEL F. CIFERRI, JOHN C.
CORBETT, JODY JEAN DREYER, GRIFFIN A. GREENE, JOHN H. HOLCOMB III,
RICHARD MURRAY IV, GEORGE TIERSO NUNEZ, THOMAS E. OAKLEY, G.
RUFFNER PAGE JR., WILLIAM KNOX POU JR., DANIEL R. RICHEY, DAVID G.
SALYERS, JOSHUA A. SNIVELY SR., MARK W. THOMPSON, and SOUTH STATE
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00398-UNA (D. Del, March
19, 2020) arises from a proposed transaction announced on January
27, 2020, pursuant to which CenterState Bank Corporation will be
acquired by South State Corporation.
On March 16, 2020, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
According to the complaint, the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. The
omitted material information focuses on the analyses performed by
the Company's financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.
CenterState Bank Corporation is a Florida-based company that
operates as one of the leading Southeastern regional bank
franchises.
South State Corporation offers a full range of retail and
commercial banking, mortgage lending, trust and investment, and
consumer finance loans. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
– and –
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
CHINA: Faces Class Suit in Texas Over COVID-19 Outbreak
-------------------------------------------------------
BUZZ PHOTOS, FREEDOM WATCH, INC., LARRY KLAYMAN, and members of the
class and subclasses and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, THE PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY, THE
WUHAN INSTITUTE OF VIROLOGY, and agency of the Government of China,
SHI ZHENGLI, Director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and MAJOR
GENERAL CHEN WEI of China's People's Liberation Army, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00656-K-BN (N.D. Tex., March 17, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
negligence, wrongful conducts causing wrongful deaths, assault and
battery and violations of 18 U.S. Code Sections 2332(a)(b)(c),
2333, and 2339A.
The complaint alleges that the People's Republic of China and its
agencies and officials violated its agreements under international
treaties by creating and releasing, accidental or otherwise, of a
variation of coronavirus known as COVID-19 as a biological weapon.
Allegedly, China failed to prevent the Wuhan Institute of
Virology's personnel from being infected with the bioweapon and
carrying it into the surrounding community and proliferation into
the U.S.
The complaint asserts that because of the wrongful conduct of
Defendants, Plaintiffs and members of the class and subclasses
suffered conscious pain, suffering, severe emotional distress and
the fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death, and death, and
have suffered pecuniary and economic damage, loss of support, loss
of nurture, care and guidance, grief, anguish, loss of services,
loss of society, and other mental and physical injuries.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and actual damages, punitive damages
because of Defendants callous and reckless indifference and
malicious acts, and attorneys' fees, costs, an award in excess of
$20 trillion U.S. Dollars and such other relief.
The People's Liberation Army is the official military arm of the
PRC.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology is a biological laboratory about 20
miles from the center of the city of Wuhan in China.
Shi Zhengli is the Director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in
Wuhan, China.
Major General Chen Wei of China's PLA is the Chinese military's top
epidemiologist and virologist, who is not only leading China's
response to the COVID-19 epidemic but also led the creation of the
COVID-19 coronavirus as a bioweapon for China's military. [BN]
The Plaintiff are represented by:
Larry Klayman, Esq.
FREEDOM WATCH, INC.
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Ste. 345
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: (561)558-5336
Email: leklayman@gmail.com
CHINA: Nevada Businesses Sue over COVID-19 Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------
BELLA VISTA LLC, a Nevada Limited Company Liability, GREENFIELD &
COMPANY INC., a Nevada Corporation; LIFE REAL ESTATE LLC, a Nevada
Limited Liability Company; MOBILE MEDIC CPR LLC, a Nevada Limited
Company; and DT GROUP LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiffs v. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; NATIONAL HEALTH
COMMISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA; MINISTRY OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; THE PEOPLE'S
GOVERNMENT OF HUBEI PROVINCE; AND THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT OF THE
CITY OF WUHAN, CHINA, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00574 (D. Nev.,
March 23, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged negligence, strict liability for
conducting ultrahazardous activity, and public nuisance which
violated rights, welfare, safety, and property rights of the
affected citizens and small businesses in the U.S. and Nevada.
According to the complaint, the world, including the U.S. and the
State of Nevada, has been devastated in recent months by the new
strain of the coronavirus, more commonly known as COVID-19, and the
mutations that have occurred with this new virus. The outbreak
initiated in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China on or about November 17,
2019 and the first case occurred in the Human Wholesale Market in
Wuhan, China.
Allegedly, the PRC and the other Defendants received credible
scientific evidence confirming that the new virus was very
contagious, deadly and capable of causing a pandemic. However, the
PRC did not disclose this evidence, but instead they engaged in a
campaign of misinformation and lies, intimidating and arresting any
Chinese doctors, scientists, attorneys and/or reporters who tried
to alert the public about the danger of the new virus.
The complaint asserts that because of Defendants' conduct and
misconduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members has caused and will
continue to suffer, reduced revenues, reduced profits and/or the
closure of many U.S. "small businesses."
Bella Vista LLC, Greenfield & Company Inc., Life Real Estate LLC,
Mobile Medic CPR Training LLC, and DT Group LLC are small
businesses in the State of Nevada.
The People's Republic of China (PRC) is a foreign nation.
The National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China is
the administrative government body and executive department under
the PRC which is responsible for monitoring and formulating health
policies in Mainland China.
The Ministry of Emergency Management of the People's Republic of
China is the administrative government body that coordinates
emergency management, including health issues, within the PRC.
The People's Government of Hubei Province is a foreign province and
administrative head of Hubei Province in the PRC.
The People's Government of City of Wuhan, China is a foreign city
and administrative head of the City of Wuhan, China.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
Tracy A. Eglet, Esq.
EGLET ADAMS
400 South Seventh St., Ste. 400
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Tel: (702)450-5400
Fax: (702)450-5451
Emails: reglet@egletlaw.com
teglet@egletlaw.com
eservice@egletlaw.com
CITIZENS AND FARMERS: Minter Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY MINTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. CITIZENS AND FARMERS BANK, Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00192-JAG (E.D. Va., March 24, 2020) is a civil action
by Plaintiff, seeking monetary damages, restitution and declaratory
relief from the Defendant, arising from the unfair and
unconscionable assessment and collection of "overdraft fees" on
accounts that were never actually overdrawn.
According to the complaint, the checking account contract documents
discussing OD Fees promise that the Defendant will only charge OD
Fees or Non-Sufficient Funds Fees on transactions where there are
insufficient funds to cover them. As happened to Plaintiff,
however, the Defendant charges OD Fees even when there are
sufficient funds to cover a debit card transaction.
The Defendants' customers have been injured by Citizens and
Farmers's improper practices to the tune of millions of dollars
bilked from their accounts in violation of their agreements with
Citizens and Farmers.
Citizens and Farmers Bank is a $2 billion bank headquartered in
King William County, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bernard J. DiMuro, Esq.
Jayna Genti, Esq.
DIMUROGINSBERG, P.C.
1101 King Street, Suite 610
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 684-4333
Facsimile: (703) 548-3181
Email: bdimuro@dimuro.com
jgenti@dimuro.com
– and –
Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Gold, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20009
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielpllc.com
D&M SERVE: Camacho-Bias Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atasha Camacho-Bias, individually, on behalf of themselves, and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. D&M Serve U
Brands Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20CV00603 (Cal. Super., February 26, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime pay and redress for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest
thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due
terminated employees, reimbursement of business expenses, costs of
suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief
pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission wage orders.
D&M Serve U Brands operates a chain of retail bakeries in
California and also provide a delivery service for its customers
where Camacho-Bias worked as a delivery driver from February to
June 2019. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
Website: www.bamlawca.com
- and -
Shani O. Zakay
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5850 Oberlin Drive, Ste. 230A
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619)892-7095
Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
Website: www.zakaylaw.com
DERREL'S MINI: $1.45MM Deal in Kutzman Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICK KUTZMAN, JAMIE LEONARDO, JOSEPH POMILLA, ROSEANN
OLIVETO, CHARLES MADDEN and MARIA IBARRA, individuals, on behalf of
themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. DERREL'S MINI STORAGE, INC., a California
Corporation, Defendan, Case No. 1:18-cv-00755-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of two proposed classes under Rule 23 and
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.
The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, commenced the putative class action against the
Defendant, alleging various employment-related claims involving
background checks, overtime pay, breaks and such under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), California Labor Code, California
Business and Professions Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission
("IWC") Wage Orders.
The case was filed in Kern County Superior Court on May 7, 2018 and
removed to the Court on June 1, 2018. The Plaintiffs claim to have
been subjected to the various types of wrongdoing and purport to
litigate the action on behalf of themselves and two putative
classes: (i) the so-called "FCRA Class," which is defined in the
2AC as all employees or prospective employees of Defendant in the
United States who executed the Defendant's standard background
check disclosure and authorization document in the period beginning
five years prior to the commencement of the action; and (ii) the
so-called "California Class," which is defined in the Second
Amended Complaint (SAC) as all individuals employed by the
Defendant as non-exempt employees in California at any time during
the period beginning four years prior to the commencement of the
action.
As to the California Class, the Second Amended Complaint (SAC)
alleges claims under the California Business and Profession Code,
the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, for failure to
calculate overtime correctly, failure to provide premiums for
missed meal and rest breaks, failure to provide reimbursement for
work-related expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
and failure to pay wages when due. The SAC also includes
individual claims for wrongful termination and retaliation
pertaining to two of the Plaintiffs, as well as a claim seeking
civil penalties for violation of California's Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA").
The parties reached a settlement prior to class certification.
The FCRA Class is defined in the Settlement Agreement as all
employees or prospective employees of the Defendant in the United
States regarding whom Defendant procured a background check from
May 7, 2016 to Dec. 13, 2018. The California Class is defined as
all individuals who are or previously were employed by the
Defendant in California and classified as non-exempt employees at
any time between May 7, 2014 to Dec. 13, 2018. The Defendant
estimates that there are 97 FCRA Class Members and 518 California
Class Members who collectively worked 77,088 workweeks between May
7, 2014 and Dec. 13, 2018.
Under the proposed Settlement Agreement, the Defendant will pay a
"Gross Settlement Amount" of $1.45 million, including $245,165.17
that it has already paid to certain employees pursuant to other
settlements relating to allegations in the action.
The "Net Settlement Amount" will be calculated by deducting for the
Gross Settlement Amount Court-approved payments for the class
counsel fees, the class counsel litigation expenses, service
payments for class representatives, the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency's ("LWDA") share of any Court-approved
award under the PAGA, any applicable payroll taxes, and approved
costs for settlement administration.
The Settlement Agreement provides that the payment for the class
counsel fees will not exceed $362,500 (25% of the Gross Settlement
Amount) and that the payment for litigation expenses will not
exceed $15,000. Settlement administration costs, similarly, are
capped at $25,000, and the class representative service payment is
capped at $7,500 for each of the Plaintiffs (for a maximum, it
appears, of $45,000 across all six Plaintiffs). Also, the
Settlement Agreement calls for seeking a "PAGA Payment" of $25,000,
of which $18,750 would be allocated to the LWDA (leaving $6,250 for
distribution to class members).
Next, $100 would be paid to each participating member of the FCRA
Class. There appear to be 97 members in the FCRA Class, so
assuming full participation, the total payment from the Net
Settlement Amount to the FCRA Class would be $9,700.
As to the California Class, the Net Settlement Amount less the
aforementioned payments of up to $9,700 to the FCRA Class would be
divided by the total number of workweeks worked between May 7, 2014
to Dec. 13, 2018 by all members of the California Class who elect
to participate in the settlement to come up with a dollar amount
per workweek. The payment for a given member of the California
Class would be calculated by multiplying the Workweek Payment by
the number of weeks the class member in question worked between May
7, 2014 and Dec. 13, 2018. That amount would then be reduced by
any settlement payment already made to that class member by the
Defendant, subject to a guarantee that every member of the
California Class is entitled to receive at least $200 from the
settlement.
No Class member will be required to return any funds received from
the prior settlement payment, and funds from uncashed checks will
be paid to Valley Children's Hospital, with no reversion to the
Defendant.
The Plaintiffs now move for conditional certification of two
proposed classes under Rule 23 and preliminary approval of the
class action settlement. The Defendant does not oppose the
motion.
Judge Ishii granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
action certification and preliminary approval of class action
settlement. The Judge conditionally certified, for purposes of
settlement only, the FCRA Class and the California Class:
a. The FCRA Class is defined as follows: All employees or
prospective employees of Defendant Derrel's Mini Storage,
Inc. in the United States regarding whom Defendant
procured a background check from May 7, 2016 to Dec.
13, 2018.
b. The California Class is defined as follows: All
individuals who are or previously were employed by
Defendant Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc. in California
and classified as non-exempt employees at any time
between May 7, 2014 to Dec. 13, 2018.
The notice plan set forth in the Settlement Agreement, including
the Notice of Pendency of Class Action Settlement and Hearing Date
for Court Approval is approved. The Parties will implement the
schedule as to notice, briefing and such set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and the entry date for the Order will be
deemed Jan. 24, 2020 for such purposes.
The Judge authorized the retention of KCC Class Action Services as
the Settlement Administrator. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De
Blouw LLP is conditionally designated as counsel for the FCRA Class
and for the California Class. Rick Kutzman, Jamie Leonardo, Joseph
Pomilla, Roseann Oliveto, Charles Madden and Maria Ibarra are
conditionally designated as class representatives for the FCRA
Class and for the California Class.
The parties will appear on June 22, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. before the
Court for a final settlement approval hearing.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/RTEnbL from Leagle.com.
Rick Kutzman, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated & Jamie Leonardo, individuals,
on
behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik --
aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle R.
Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug and
Bhowmik, Molly Ann DeSario, Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik,
Norman
Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik,
LLP, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio , Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.
Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Charles Paul Hamamjian, Sagaser Watkins Wieland PC,
Howard A. Sagaser, Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC & Ian Blade
Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC.
DIRECT DELIVERY SERVICE: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Evans Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANTHONY EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff
v. DIRECT DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., a California Corporation and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-00E-2020-3776
(Cal. Sup. Ct., San Joaquin County, March 17, 2020) arises from
Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code
Sections 226.7, 512, 558, 226(a),(e), 204(a)(b), 201-203,
204(a)(b).
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt and hourly
employee Delivery Drivers.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants did not comply with the Labor
Code by failing to:
-- pay Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees on time on
a weekly basis;
-- provide meal periods or rest periods and thus fail to pay
premium wage;
-- issue accurately itemized wage statements; and
-- promptly pay all wages due to Plaintiff at the time of his
termination.
Plaintiff seeks relief that includes penalties pursuant to Labor
Code Sections 203, 226(e), 226.7, 204(b), and 2698; and awards
providing for payment of costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
Direct Delivery Service, Inc. provides courier service. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM
28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Tel: (818)293-5623
Fax: (818)850-1310
Email: Roman@OLFLA.com
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Boyle Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
KELSEY BOYLE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WAYNE PETERSON ENTERPRISES, d/b/a DOMINO'S
PIZZA; and WAYNE PETERSON, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-00101-SMR-HCA (S.D. Iowa, March 20, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to adequately reimburse
automobile expenses to the Plaintiff and all others
similarly-situated delivery drivers which causes their wages to
fall below the federal minimum wage pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a delivery driver at
Domino's Pizza store located at 1430 E. Army Post Rd., Des Moines,
Iowa since approximately October 2019.
Wayne Peterson Enterprises is an operator of Domino's Pizza
franchise stores. It conducts business in the State of Minnesota.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harley C. Erbe, Esq.
ERBE LAW FIRM
2501 Grand Avenue, First Floor
Des Moines, IO 50312
Telephone: (515) 281-1460
Facsimile: (515) 281-1474
E-mail: harleyerbe@erbelaw.com
- and -
Meredith Black Mathews, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
DOUYU INT'L: IPO Documents Contain Misleading Info, Liang Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUDE LIANG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. DOUYU INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED,
SHAOJIE CHEN, WENMING ZHANG, CHAO CHENG, MINGMING SU, HAO CAO, TING
YIN, HAIYANG YU, XI CAO, XUEHAI WANG, ZHAOMING CHEN, ZHI YAN,
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BOFA
SECURITIES, INC., CMB INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED, TENCENT
HOLDINGS LIMITED, RICHARD ARTHUR, and COGENCY GLOBAL INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02747 (C.D. Cal., March 24, 2020) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and
entities, other than Defendants, who purchased DouYu American
Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's July
16, 2019 initial public offering, seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of
1933.
On April 22, 2019, the Company filed a registration statement with
the SEC on Form F-l, which, after several amendments, was declared
effective on July 16, 2019. Thereafter, on July 18, 2019, the
Company filed a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which
incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement.
The Registration Statement was used to sell to the investing public
more than 67.3 million DouYu ADSs at $11.50 per ADS. Defendants
generated more than $774 million in gross offering proceeds from
their sale of the Company's securities in the IPO.
The Offering Documents used to effectuate DouYu's IPO and secure
this enormous sum for Defendants from Plaintiff and the Class were
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made therein not misleading. Specifically, the
Offering Documents failed to disclose that prior to the IPO:
(i) DouYu's risks related to its top streamers had
materialized, including that: (a) a top streamer was actively
misrepresenting herself on DouYu's platform; and (b) the costs
associated with retaining top streamers was swelling;
(ii) DouYu did not ensure that all of its products were fully
compliant with current regulatory requirements before those
products became available online; and
(iii) key interactive features of DouYu's "lucky draw" were
non-compliant with current regulatory requirements, requiring DouYu
to remove them from operations, which negatively impacted user
engagement activity and caused disappointing financial results.
DouYu International Holdings Limited is a China-based company
principally engaged in the operation of its own live streaming
platforms.
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC operates as an investment management
company. The Company offers wealth management, asset allocation,
capital markets, investment banking, research, trading,
recapitalizations, equities valuations, trust and estate planning,
strategies, and financial advisory services.
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC operates as an investment management
company. The Company offers wealth planning, education funding,
research, securities, brokerage solutions, consulting programs, and
portfolio management services. J.P. Morgan Securities serves
customers worldwide.
BofA Securities, Inc. is a broker-dealer registered with the U.S.
Security and Exchange Commission and incorporated in the state of
Delaware.
CMB International Capital Limited is an integrated financial
institution providing comprehensive and professional services.
Tencent Holdings Limited is a Chinese multinational conglomerate
holding company founded in 1998, whose subsidiaries specialise in
various Internet-related services and products, entertainment,
artificial intelligence and technology both in China and globally.
Cogency Global Inc. is a leading provider of nationwide and
international registered agent, process agent, corporate and
secured transaction services for all industries, including the
nonprofit sector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
EATON CORPORATION: Tolbert Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Tolbert, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
EATON CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00647 (N.D. Ohio, March 26,
2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours a week without receiving overtime pay. The
Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime as required by the
FLSA. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff the same hourly
rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a
workweek.
Plaintiff Tolbert was employed by Eaton as Senior Project Engineer
from 2001 until October 2017.
Eaton is a multinational power management company that manufactures
engineered products for the industrial, vehicle, construction,
commercial, and aerospace markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP
3208 Clinton Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone & Facsimile: 216-815-9500
Email: jbristol@crklaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, 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
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
ENDO INT'L: Pelletier Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Pelletier v. Endo
International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu
P. Upadhyay and Paul V. Campanelli
In November 2017, a putative class action entitled Pelletier v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva,
Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul V. Campanelli was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by an
individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated shareholders.
The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act relating to the pricing of various generic
pharmaceutical products.
In June 2018, the court appointed Park Employees' and Retirement
Board Employees' Annuity Benefit Fund of Chicago lead plaintiff in
the action. In September 2018, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part in
February 2020.
In particular, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
claims with prejudice insofar as they were based on an alleged
price-fixing conspiracy; the court otherwise denied the motion to
dismiss, allowing other aspects of lead plaintiff's claims to
proceed.
Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.
ENDO INT'L: Settlement in Bier Suit Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement in the
class action suit entitled, Bier v. Endo International plc, has
received final court approval.
In August 2017, an alleged individual shareholder filed a putative
class action entitled Bier v. Endo International plc in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
the company, Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI) and certain of the
company's current and former directors and officers, based on its
decision to voluntarily remove reformulated OPANA(R ER from the
market.
In December 2017, the court appointed SEB Investment Management AB
lead plaintiff in the action.
In August 2019, the parties entered into a settlement providing
for, among other things, a payment of $82.5 million to the investor
class in exchange for a release of their claims. The settlement
received preliminary court approval in September 2019 and final
approval in December 2019.
As a result of the settlement, during the second quarter of 2019,
the Company recorded an increase of approximately $82.5 million to
its accrual for loss contingencies.
Endo said, "As the Company's insurers agreed to fund the
settlement, the Company also recorded a corresponding insurance
receivable of approximately $82.5 million during the second quarter
of 2019, which was recorded as Prepaid expenses and other current
assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. With respect to this
settlement, the Company's insurers funded $20.0 million during the
third quarter of 2019 and the remainder in October 2019, resulting
in corresponding decreases to the Company's accrual for loss
contingencies and insurance receivable."
Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.
ENDO INT'L: Settlement in Suit Over Zetia Sales Awaits Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement
reached with direct purchasers in the class action suit related to
Zetia(R) still awaits court approval.
Beginning in February 2018, several alleged indirect purchasers
filed proposed class actions against the company subsidiary Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) and other pharmaceutical companies
alleging violations of antitrust law arising out of the settlement
of certain patent litigation concerning the generic version of
Zetia(R) (ezetimibe).
The various complaints asserted claims under Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer protection statutes
and/or state common law and sought injunctive relief, damages,
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
In June 2018, these and other related cases, including proposed
direct purchaser class actions in which PPI was not named as a
defendant, were consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial
proceedings in a federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.
In September 2018, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs dismissed
their claims against PPI without prejudice.
In June and July 2019, the MDL court granted the direct purchaser
plaintiffs and certain retailer plaintiffs leave to file amended
complaints adding PPI as a defendant.
In July 2019, PPI entered into settlement agreements with both the
direct purchaser plaintiffs and the retailer plaintiffs. The direct
purchaser settlement is subject to court approval.
Endo said, "The settlement agreements were solely by way of
compromise and settlement, were not in any way an admission of
liability or fault and involved no monetary payment."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.
ENLOE MEDICAL: Alizadeh et al Sue over Data Theft
-------------------------------------------------
The case, AHMAD ALIZADEH, SHARON HART, and JOANN WARREN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 20CV00799 (Cal. Sup.
Ct., Butte Cty., March 19, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged
negligence, intrusion into private affairs, breach of express
contract, breach of implied contract, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, violations of California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act and California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, EMC experienced a cybersecurity
incident on January 2, 2020, and determined that it was the victim
of a targeted ransomware attack. The incident has disrupted
operations by blocking access to EMC's computer systems and data.
A ransomware attack is a type of malicious software that blocks
access to a computer system or data, usually by encrypting it,
until the victim pays a fee to the attacker.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs and Class Members have
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of disruption of medical
services, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack.
Moreover, the sensitive personal information, which was entrusted
to EMC, its officials and agents, of Plaintiffs and Class Members
was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the allegedly
Ransomware Attack. Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to
a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, reimbursement of
out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements
to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and
adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant.
Enloe Medical Center is in the business of rendering services,
medical care, treatment, and health services throughout Butte
County and California's North State. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Ste.305
Washington, DC 20016
Tel: (202)429-2290
Fax: (202)429-2294
Emails: dperry@masonllp.com
gmason@masonllp.com
dlietz@masonllp.com
ENTERPRISE RESTORATION: Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Castellano, Marlene Castellano Delgado and Rene Rodriguez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
John W. Adams, III, in his capacity as CEO/President of Enterprise
Restoration Services, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-00663, (E.D. La.,
February 26, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages at the applicable
rates, damages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest and/or
post-judgment, interest, attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
prosecuting this action and such other and further relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Enterprise Restoration provides a variety of restoration work to
its clients in the state of Louisiana and nationwide where
Plaintiffs worked as manual laborers. They claim to have routinely
worked more than 40 hours per workweek without being paid an
overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate
of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Cesar R. Burgos, Esq.
Robert J. Daigre, Esq.
Gabriel O. Mondino, Esq.
George McGregor, Esq.
BURGOS & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
3535 Canal Street, Suite 200
New Orleans, LA 70119-6135
Telephone: (504) 488-3722
Facsimile: (504) 482-8525
FBCS INC: Hill Sues in E.D. New York Alleging Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FBCS, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Gordon K Hill, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FBCS, Inc., Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01565 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Federal Bond And Collection Service, Inc. (FBCS) provides
collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
FREDDY MASVEYRAUD: Dressel Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARREL DRESSEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FREDDY MASVEYRAUD; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02542
(C.D. Cal., March 17, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant contacted Plaintiff in an
attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services,
without Plaintiff's prior express consent, beginning in or around
October 2017 to Plaintiff's home and cellular telephone numbers
ending in -6890 and -7505, which numbers are added to the National
Do-Not-Call Registry on or about August 23, 2005 and March 15,
2011. Plaintiff has received numerous solicitation calls from
Defendants' telephone numbers (954)609-0996 within a 12-month.
Moreover, despite being expressly asked by Plaintiff to be removed
from Defendant's call list beginning on or about October 2017 and
to stop contacting him, Defendant continued contacting Plaintiff
which is a violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the
TCPA.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and members of the DNC Class
and DNC Revocation Class were harmed and damaged by the acts of
Defendants such as invading their privacy.
Freddy Masveyraud is a real estate agent. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Burkhart et al. Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Richard F.
Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt,
Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Genworth et al.
In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth
North America Corporation, GFIH and Genworth Life Insurance Company
("GLIC") were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
captioned Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery,
Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al. Plaintiffs
allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in
certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate
capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders
and agents.
The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent
transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive
relief.
The company moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On
January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their
complaint. On March 12, 2019, the company moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint.
On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to
the company's motion to dismiss, which the company replied to on
June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then
planned sale of its shares in Genworth Canada from being
transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion seeking the same relief from their August 7, 2019
motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million
of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a
dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the pay off of a senior
secured term loan facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth
Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the
lending parties thereto.
Oral arguments on the company's motion to dismiss and plaintiffs'
motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and plaintiffs' motion was
denied.
On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part the company's motion
to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends
GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million
in total dividends subject to plaintiffs’ claims). The Court
denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim
relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims
relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction.
Genworth said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend this
action."
Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Skochin Final Approval Hearing Set for July 10
------------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court
overseeing the case, Jerome Skochin, Susan Skochin, and Larry
Huber, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. Genworth Financial, Inc. and Genworth Life Insurance
Company, has preliminarily approved the settlement and set the
final approval hearing for July 10, 2020.
In January 2019, Genworth Financial and Genworth Life Insurance
Company (GLIC) were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia captioned Jerome Skochin, Susan Skochin, and
Larry Huber, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Genworth Financial, Inc. and Genworth Life
Insurance Company.
Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance
policyholders, alleging that Genworth made misleading and
inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term
care insurance policies. The complaint asserts claims for breach of
contract, fraud, fraudulent inducement and violation of
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
(on behalf of the two named plaintiffs who are Pennsylvania
residents), and seeks damages (including statutory treble damages
under Pennsylvania law) in excess of $5 million.
On March 12, 2019, the company moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint. On March 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss, which the company
replied to on April 1, 2019. In July 2019, the Court heard oral
arguments on the company's motion to dismiss.
On August 29, 2019, the Court issued an order granting the
company's motion to dismiss the claim with regard to breach of
contract, but denied the company's motion with regard to fraudulent
omission, fraudulent inducement and violation of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law.
On September 20, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
dropping Genworth Financial as a defendant and reducing their
causes of action from four counts to two: fraudulent inducement by
omission and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law (on behalf of the two named plaintiffs who
are Pennsylvania residents).
The parties engaged in a mediation process and, on October 22,
2019, reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter on a
nationwide basis.
On January 15, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement and set the final approval hearing for July 10, 2020.
Genworth said, "Based on the Court's preliminary approval of the
settlement, we do not anticipate the result to have a material
adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position.
If the court does not approve the final settlement, we intend to
continue to vigorously defend this action."
Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.
GT PIZZA: Rhoden Seeks Proper Wages for Pizza Delivery Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEBBY RHODEN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. GT PIZZA, INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA, and
GLEN STROUD, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01424-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio,
March 18, 2020) alleges that the Defendants fail to compensate
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals with minimum wages for
all hours worked and minimum overtime rate for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Mr. Rhoden worked for Defendants as a pizza delivery driver at
their Domino's Pizza restaurant on Riverside Dr. in Columbus,
Ohio.
GT Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Domino's Pizza, owns and operates several
Domino's franchise restaurants in Ohio, including stores within
this District and this Division. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alyson S. Beridon, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
425 Walnut Street, Suite 2315
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 381-2224
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: alysonb@bsjfirm.com
– and –
Meredith Black Mathews, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. Saint Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
Email: www.foresterhaynie.com
GTS TRANSPORTATION: Plestsov et al. Seek Proper Wages for Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXEI PLESTSOV, DENIS NAZAROV, ROMAN KALABAYDA, Individually and
on behalf of other similarly situated member of putative class,
Plaintiffs, v. GTS TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, TOMAS STIRBYS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01847 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020)
alleges that the Defendants fail to pay proper wages, make improper
wage deductions, and fail to reimburse work-related expenses to
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated member of putative class
in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
The Plaintiffs, also misclassified as independent contractors, were
employed by the Defendants as truck drivers.
GTS Transportation Corporation is a Illinois-based company that
engages in the transportation and delivery business. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julia Bikbova, Esq.
Bikbova Law Offices, P.C.
666 Dundee Rd, Suite 1604
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: 847-730-1800
Email: julia@bikbovalaw.com
HALAL GUYS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Alcazar Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ALCAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HALAL GUYS FRANCHISE, INC., a New Jersey
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02028-JCS (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://thehalalguys.com/, to be
fully and equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, including Plaintiff.
The Halal Guys Franchise, Inc. operates restaurants and its website
provides consumers with access to a selection of Middle Eastern
cuisine and beverage menu items which are available online and in
restaurant locations to purchase. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213)381-9988
Fax: (213)381-9989
Emails: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
HELP AT HOME CT: Lekuntwane Seeks Overtime Pay for Caregivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kefilwe Lekuntwane, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff V.
Help at Home CT, LLC, Alzheimer's and Dementia Care, LLC, Homecare
Connections, LLC and Mary Ann Ciambriello, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00386-RNC (D. Conn., March 23, 2020) alleges that the
Defendants fail to pay overtime as required by law to their live-in
Home Health Aide employees including the Plaintiff even though they
were aware that they worked 91 hours per week.
The Defendants failed to accurately record all hours worked by
their Home Health Aide employees. Their employees were frequently
interrupted during the night and failed to get at least 5 hours of
uninterrupted sleep time. They were also unable to have 3 one-hour
meal breaks. Nevertheless, Defendants assumed that their employees
all had 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep time and took 3 full
one-hour meal breaks and failed to pay them for this time.
Help at Home CT, LLC is Connecticut-based home health care service
provider.
Alzheimer's and Dementia Care, LLC is a Connecticut-based company
that provides home health care service.
Homecare Connections, LLC is a Connecticut-based company that
provides home health care service. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
Hayber McKenna & Dinsmore, LLC
750 Main Street, Suite 904
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 522-8888
Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
– and –
Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
Law Office of Nitor V. Egbarin, LLC
100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3007
Telephone: (860) 249-7180
Facsimile: (860) 408-1471
Email: NEgbarin@aol.com
HEXCEL CORP: Fischman Says Woodward Merger Docs Lack Info
----------------------------------------------------------
AARON FISCHMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. HEXCEL CORPORATION, NICK L. STANAGE, JOEL
S. BECKMAN, LYNN BRUBAKER, JEFFREY C. CAMPBELL, CYNTHIA M.
EGNOTOVICH, THOMAS A. GENDRON, JEFFREY A. GRAVES, GUY C. HACHEY,
CATHERINE A. SUEVER, GENESIS MERGER SUB, INC., and WOODWARD, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00402-UNA (D. Del., March 20, 2020) is
a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of the public stockholders of
Hexcel Corporation against Hexcel's Board of Directors for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of
the Board's attempt to sell the Company to Woodward, Inc. through
its wholly owned subsidiary Genesis Merger Sub, Inc.
The Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a
materially incomplete and misleading registration statement to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2020. The S-4 recommends that Hexcel stockholders vote in favor of
a proposed transaction whereby Hexcel is acquired by Woodward. The
Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on January 12, 2020, when
Hexcel and Woodward announced that they had entered into a
definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Hexcel stockholders
will receive 0.625 shares of Woodward common stock for each share
of Hexcel they hold. The deal is expected to close in the third
quarter of 2020.
The S-4 is materially incomplete and contains misleading
representations and information in violation of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning the sales process, financial projections
prepared by Hexcel management, as well as the financial analyses
conducted by Goldman Sachs & Co, LLC, Hexcel's financial advisor.
Hexcel Corporation is an American public industrial materials
company, based in Stamford, Connecticut. The company develops and
manufactures structural materials including carbon fiber, specialty
reinforcements, resins, honeycomb, adhesives, engineered honeycomb
composite structures, and prepregs.
Woodward, Inc. is the world's oldest and largest independent
designer, manufacturer, and service provider of control systems and
control system components for aircraft engines, industrial engines
and turbines, power generation and mobile industrial equipment.
Genesis Merger Sub, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Woodward,
Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
824 N. Market Street, Suite 1001A
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 778-4000
Email: rernst@oelegal.com
– and –
Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
ROWLEY LAW PLLC
50 Main Street, Suite 1000
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 400-1920
Facsimile: (914) 301-3514
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Rouse Suit Over Identity Theft, Card Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Kevin Rouse, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-00800-SRN-ECW (D. Minn., March 25,
2020) alleges that the Defendant willfully violated the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act and failed to protect Plaintiff
and others similarly situated against identity theft and credit
card and debit card fraud by printing more than the last five
digits of the card number on paper receipts provided at the point
of sale to credit card and debit card cardholders transaction
business with Defendant.
The Defendant was routinely presenting receipts to its customers at
the point of sale at its establishments which receipts displayed
more than the last give digits of the customers' credit and/or
debit cards, in violation of the requirements of FACTA.
The displaying of more than five digits of Plaintiff's personal
credit/debit card numbers on the receipts is specifically
prohibited by FACTA and is the very harm that congress sought to
prevent by turning such disclosure into an actionable tort, the
complaint says.
Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. is an American multinational
hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio
of hotels and resorts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Lyons, Jr. Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Telephone: (651) 770-9707
Facsimile: (651) 770-5830
Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
HUAXCUAXTLA RESTAURANT: Molina et al. Seek OT Pay for Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADELA MOLINA, LETICIA HERNANDEZ, and VERONICA GUTIERREZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HUAXCUAXTLA RESTAURANT CORP.; EL CERRITO RESTAURANT;
COMERCIAL MEXICANA CORP.; NOLBERTO MARTINEZ CRISANTOS; and ISABEL
ROMERO, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02481 (S.D.N.Y., March 20,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
compensate the Plaintiffs and all other similarly-situated
restaurant employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as hourly-paid
restaurant employees between 2008 and 2020.
Huaxcuaxtla Restaurant Corp. is a domestic business corporation and
restaurant operator with its principal place of business located at
605 Courtlandt Avenue, Bronx, New York.
El Cerrito Restaurant is a domestic company and restaurant operator
with its principal place of business located at 1184 Elder Avenue,
Bronx, New York.
Comercial Mexicana Corp. is a domestic business corporation and
restaurant operator with its principal place of business located at
1182 Elder Avenue, Bronx, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
Patrick J. Collopy, Esq.
Camilo M. Burr, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com
pcollopy@faruqilaw.com
cburr@faruqilaw.com
HY-VEE INC: Fails to Secure Consumers' PII, Davis Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA DAVIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. HY-VEE INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00941 (W.D. Wis., Nov.
15, 2019), seeks redress for negligence because of the failure of
Hy-Vee to implement and maintain reasonable security measures over
consumers' personally identifiable information.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges, Hy-Vee's failure to adopt
reasonable security measures and protocols put millions of
consumers' personal credit and debit card information at an
unreasonably high risk of disclosure, a risk that materialized into
actual harm as a result of a months-long data breach that affected
more than five million people.
On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff Patricia Davis purchased take-away "hot
bar" food items from the Hy-Vee Market Grille location at 2920
Fitchrona Road, in Fitchburg, Wisconsin. The Plaintiff purchased
the hot bar food items with her debit card, entering her debit card
PIN to complete the purchase.
On August 14, 2019, Hy-Vee issued a Press Release entitled Notice
of Payment Card Data Incident, which announced that Hy-Vee had been
subject to a "data incident involving its payment processing
systems" (the "Data Breach").
According to this press release, the Data Breach affected Hy-Vee's
customers, who made card purchases at Hy-Vee's fuel pumps,
drive-thru coffee shops, and restaurants, including Hy-Vee Market
Grilles, Market Grille Expresses and Wahlburgers locations that
Hy-Vee owns and operates but apparently did not affect customers,
who made card purchases through checkout lines at Hy-Vee grocery
stores, drugstores, and convenience stores.
On October 3, 2019, Hy-Vee issued another press release, entitled
Hy-Vee Reports Findings from Investigation of Payment Card Data
Incident, which confirmed that the malware used to access payment
card data at Hy-Vee's fuel pumps, drive-thru coffee shops, and
restaurants "searched for track data (which sometimes has the
cardholder name in addition to card number, expiration date, and
internal verification code) read from a payment card as it was
being routed through the POS device."
Hy-Vee, Inc., is an Iowa corporation with its principal place of
business located in West Des Moines, Iowa. Hy-Vee is a chain of
more than 245 supermarkets located throughout the Midwestern United
States, operating stores in Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
Many Hy-Vee stores are "one-stop" or "full-service supermarkets,"
offering consumers the option to purchase not only foodstuffs but
also, among other things, flowers, pharmacies, and alcoholic
beverages including wine and spirits. Certain of Hy-Vee stores
also operate vehicle fuel pumps, drive-thru coffee shops, and
restaurants, such as the Hy-Vee Market Grille.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Erich P. Schork, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
Facsimile: (312)-641-5504
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
e.schork@barnowlaw.com
IBEAT INC: Faces Katz Chiropratic TCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IBeat, Inc. The case
is styled as Jeffrey Katz Chiropratic, Inc., a California
corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IBeat, Inc. doing business as: 100 Plus, Case No.
4:20-cv-02097-KAW (C.D. Cal., March 26, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
iBeat is a health tech startup.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Leah Davis, Esq.
LOZEAU DRURY, LLP
410 12th Street, Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 836-4200
Fax: (510) 836-4205
Email: rebecca@lozeaudrury.com
INSPIRED CLOSETS: McCloud Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIQUE MCCLOUD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. CLOSET SYSTEMS BY TIMM LLC, d/b/a
INSPIRED CLOSETS, and ROBERT T. ALLEN, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-01106-DCN (D.S.C., March 19, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly-situated workers for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week and misclassifying them as exempt from
the overtime compensation requirements of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a scheduling
coordinator from December 2017 until approximately November 2018.
Closet Systems by Timm LLC is a Charleston, South Carolina-based
provider of home solutions, including closets, pantries, garages,
basements, laundry rooms, and home offices. It is also doing
business as Inspired Closets. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
MULLANEY LAW
652 Rutledge Ave, Suite A
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 588-5587
E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net
J.P. MORGAN: Taschler Sues Over Debt Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------
The case, TASHIA TASCHLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02535 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2020)
alleges that the Defendant made robocalls with the Plaintiff
numerous times in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
In or around September 2019, Plaintiff began receiving numerous
calls to her cellular telephone number from Chase seeking to
recover a debt relating to Robert Taschler, who was her deceased
grandfather.
Defendant made numerous calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number, (219) xxx-7061, using an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS) which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers
to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and to
dial such numbers.
Because the calls to Plaintiff did not start until after her
grandfather passed away, and Plaintiff and her grandfather at one
time resided at the same address, it appears Chase obtained
Plaintiff's cellular telephone from a third party skip-tracing
service.
Defendant's aggravating and annoying phone calls trespassed upon
and interfered with Plaintiff's rights and interests in her
cellular telephone and cellular telephone line, and intruded upon
Plaintiff's seclusion. Defendant's phone calls harmed Plaintiff by
wasting her time, trespassing on her phone, invading her privacy as
well as causing aggravation and inconvenience.
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a national banking association with
its principal place of business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
Theodore H. Kuyper, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
Email: keith@keoghlaw.com
tkuyper@keoghlaw.com
JOZON ENTERPRISES: Pavao Sues Over Unfair Wages for Delivery Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY PAVAO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. JOZON ENTERPRISES INC. d/b/a DOMINO’S
PIZZA and JOSEPH ZONFRILLI, individually Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-10547 (D. Mass., March 19, 2020) alleges that the
Defendants fail to pay minimum wages and overtime hours owed to
Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver
from approximately 2011 to August 2019 at the Defendants' Domino's
Pizza stores located in the Somerset, Massachusetts area.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' systematic failure to
adequately reimburse automobile expenses constitutes a kickback to
the Defendants such that the hourly wages paid to the Plaintiff and
the other delivery drivers are not paid free and clear of all
outstanding obligations to the Defendants.
The Defendants fail to reasonably approximate the amount of their
drivers' automobile expenses to such an extent that the drivers'
net wages are diminished beneath the federal minimum wage
requirements.
Jozon Enterprises Inc., d/b/a Domino's Pizza, owns and operates
numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores including stores within
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: aorlandi@bsjfirm.com
– and –
Meredith Mathews, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. Saint Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
Email: www.foresterhaynie.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Carrillo Labor Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Yelena Carrillo, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
Defendant, Case No. 161965/2019 (N.Y. Sup, December 11, 2019), was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on February 29, 2020 under Case No. 20-cv-01794.
Carrillo seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, and
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, redress for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, injunctive relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law. JPMorgan
employed Carillo at its branch located at 156 2nd Avenue, New York.
[BN]
JPMorgan Chase Bank is represented by:
Jason David Burns
MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP (NY)
101 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10178
Tel: (212) 309-6000
Fax: (212) 309-6001
KODAKO INC: Baker Seeks OT Pay for Bakers, Drivers & Cashiers
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KODAKO INC., TOBIASKO, INC., KOFRISKO, LLC,
and SANGMIN KANG, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00219-ALM (E.D.
Tex., March 17, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought
against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff has worked as a baker, delivery driver, and cashier for
Defendants since hired in approximately July 2018.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and those similarly situated
were not paid an overtime premium despite routinely working over 40
hours in a workweek. Also, they were not provided with breaks or
meal periods during their shifts.
Sangmin Kang is the owner and operator of the Kolache Factory,
participated directly in employment decisions, actively involved in
managing the operations of the defendant companies, and had control
over the companies' pay policies. Allegedly, Kang used th three
interrelated companies, Kodako, Tobiasko, and Kofrisko, to avoid
the overtime compensation obligations under the FLSA.
Kodako Inc., Tobiasko, Inc., nad Kofrisko Inc. are domestic
for-profit corporations and operators of Kolache Factory, a bakery
& cafe that serves the freshest kolaches and specialty bakery
products that are made from scratch each day. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Tel: (225)925-5297
Fax: (225)231-7000
Email: scott@bohrerbrady.com
LANDING STRIP: Juarez Sues over Unpaid OT Pay, Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------------
DURINA JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTEX BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, L.C. D/B/A THE
LANDING STRIP; THEO POLAKIS; LAMPROS MOUMOURIS; GEORGE DOE; AND
CORY DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00309-RP (W.D. Tex., March
23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
misclassifying Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated dancers
and/or entertainers as independent contractors and failing to
compensate them appropriate minimum wage and overtime pay in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a dancer from
approximately November 2019 through January 2020.
Centex Business Consultants, L.C. is a strip club operator located
at 745 U.S. Highway 183 in Austin, Texas. It is also doing business
as The Landing Strip. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
craft@hughesellzey.com
leigh@hughesellzey.com
LIBRETTOS ON 3RD: Cali Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wilfrido Cali, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Librettos on 3rd Inc. d/b/a Libretto's Pizzeria and
John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:19-cv-10592 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019),
alleges that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and
former restaurant employees of the Defendants, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, are entitled to:
(1) compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory
minimum wage;
(2) unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for
which they did not receive overtime premium pay as
required by law; and
(3) liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA because the
Defendants' violations lacked a good faith basis.
Librettos on 3rd Inc., doing business as Libretto's Pizzeria, is a
New York corporation with a principal place of business at 546
Third Avenue, in New York City. The Doe Defendants represent the
owners, officers, directors, members, and/or managing agents of the
Defendants, whose identities are unknown at this time.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
SAMUEL & STEIN
38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Rosenberg Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Douglas E. Rosenberg, Plaintiff, v. LoanDepot.com LLC
and Ascendant Marketing Group LLC, SECTION "A" (1). Defendants,
Civil Action No. 19-10661-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
denied: (1) Loan Depot's motion to stay, (2) Loan Depot's motion to
strike the class allegations, (3) the motion of Loan Depot and
Ascendant to dismiss on grounds that the TCPA is unconstitutional
and inseverable and that Rosenberg has failed to state a claim, and
(4) two motions, one by each Defendant, to dismiss
non-Massachusetts putative class members for lack of personal
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2).
The case is a putative class action which purports to arise from a
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
Plaintiff Rosenberg alleges that Loan Depot and Ascendant Marketing
made repeated automated telemarketing calls to his cell phone in
violation of the TCPA.
Plaintiff Rosenberg is a Massachusetts resident who owns a cell
phone with a "508" area code. He alleges that his cell phone is
his only telephone, he uses it for residential purposes and he
registered the number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and the
Massachusetts Do-Not-Call List in 2003.
Defendant Loan Depot is a California limited liability company and
a non-bank consumer lender. Ascendant Marketing is a Texas limited
liability company and provides marketing services. Loan Depot
allegedly contracted with Ascendant Marketing to generate business
through telemarketing services.
In 2018, Rosenberg alleges that he received a number of phone
calls, both from Loan Depot and from Ascendant Marketing,
advertising Loan Depot's services. He alleges that at least two of
those calls were made from non-working or "spoofed" numbers, which
he contends is indicative of the fact that the calls were made from
an Automatic Telephone Dialing System ("ATDS") in violation of the
TCPA.
He seeks to certify nationwide classes of (1) consumers who were
called by the Defendants via an automated dialing system in
violation of the TCPA's automated calling provision ("ATDS class")
and (2) persons who were called by the Defendants more than once in
a 12-month period in violation of the TCPA's Do-Not-Call provision
("DNC class").
In April 2019, Rosenberg filed a complaint against Loan Depot and a
John Doe Corporation as the representative of a proposed nationwide
class. Loan Depot responded with two motions to dismiss, a motion
to strike the class and a motion to stay the case. In June, 2019,
Rosenberg filed an amended complaint which added Ascendant
Marketing as a Defendant and set forth allegations supporting the
ATDS class and DNC class.
In response to the amended complaint, the parties stipulated that
the initial motions to dismiss and to strike the class were moot.
Loan Depot subsequently filed renewed motions seeking the same
relief. Both the Defendants also filed motions to dismiss the
non-Massachusetts putative class members.
In May 2019, Loan Depot moved to stay the action pending rulings
(1) from the FCC redefining an ATDS in light of ACA Int'l, and (2)
on a constitutional challenge to the TCPA pending in the Ninth
Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has since ruled on the TCPA's
constitutionality, rendering any argument for a stay on those
grounds moot.
After careful consideration of the parties' arguments and the
purpose of the primary jurisdiction doctrine, Judge Gorton finds
that a stay is unwarranted. The Court is capable of applying
existing law and regulatory framework to determine the definition
of an ATDS and to resolve the dispute without updated FCC guidance.
There exists an extensive body of applicable TCPA caselaw from
which the Court can gain insight. The Judge also declines to
exercise its inherent power for the same reasons the Court found a
stay unwarranted under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
Loan Depot asserts that the Plaintiff's putative classes cannot be
certified as a matter of law and therefore the Court should take
the unusual step of striking the class allegations based solely on
the pleadings. Rosenberg responds that the Defendant's motion to
strike the class is premature and that both putative classes
contain common questions of law and fact which make class
certification plausible.
The Court finds that the Defendant's motion to strike the class
allegations is premature before the Plaintiff can develop the
factual record through discovery. Loan Depot's citation of consent
as a potential affirmative defense is insufficient to warrant
striking the putative class solely on the pleadings. Rosenberg has
stated a claim that Loan Depot is vicariously liable for Ascendants
conduct because (1) Ascendant Marketing acted with apparent
authority and (2) Loan Depot ratified its conduct. Hence, the
motion to strike class allegations will, therefore, be denied
without prejudice.
In their final attempt to dismiss the putative class action, the
Defendants contend (in separate briefs) that the Supreme Court's
decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court extends
beyond mass tort actions to class actions and mandates that the
Court dismiss the non-Massachusetts putative class members pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(2).
The Plaintiffs, and the Court, disagree. The Court finds that the
BMS case does not apply to a putative class action such as the case
at bar. In brief, there are two key differences. First, in a mass
tort action each individual plaintiff is a real party in interest.
In a putative class action, however, one or more plaintiffs seek to
represent the rest of the similarly situated plaintiffs, and the
named plaintiffs are the only plaintiffs actually named in the
complaint. Second, a class action, unlike a mass tort case, must
meet additional due process standards for certification under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23.
Given those inherent differences and the well-reasoned caselaw
holding that the BMS case does not apply in the class action
context, the Court similarly declines to extend the reach of the
BMS decision. The Court therefore denied the two pending motions
to dismiss the complaint as to non-Massachusetts resident putative
class members for lack of personal jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/cTs2p9 from Leagle.com.
Douglas E. Rosenberg, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I. Paronich --
anthony@paronichlaw.com -- Paronich Law, P.C., Avi R. Kaufman,
Kaufman P.A., pro hac vice & Alex M. Washkowitz --
alex@cwlawgrouppc.com -- CW Law Group, P.C.
LoanDepot.com LLC, Defendant, represented by Kelly M. Kirby --
kballentine@burnslev.com -- Burns & Levinson LLP & Paul R.
Mastrocola -- pmastrocola@burnslev.com -- Burns & Levinson.
Ascendant Marketing Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Beth-Ann
Krimsky, Greenspoon Marder, pro hac vice, Donald R. Frederico,
Pierce Atwood LLP, Jamey R. Campellone, Greenspoon Marder LLP, pro
hac vice & Melanie A. Conroy, Pierce Atwood LLP.
LOGICBIO THERAPEUTICS: Afinowicz Sues over Securities Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN R. AFINOWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOGICBIO THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
FREDERIC CHEREAU, and MATTHIAS B. JAFFÉ, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03009 (D.N.J., March 18, 2020) is a class action complaint
brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of the
Federal Securities Laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded LogicBio
securities between December 3, 2018 and February 10, 2020.
According to the complaint, the corporate presentation given by
Defendants on January 12, 2020, which touted the path and timeline
of LB-001, were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations and prospects.
Moreover, shares of LogicBio fell $3.34 per share, or almost 32% to
close at $7.11 per share on February 11, 2020 due to the press
release issued by LogicBio on February 10, 2020 which says the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration has placed a clinical hold on the
Investigation New Drug submission for LB-001.
The complaint asserts that because of Defendant's wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Frederic Chereau is the Company's CEO, President, and a Director.
Matthias B. Jaffé is the Company's Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer.
LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc. is a genome editing company focused on
developing medicines to treat rare diseases in patients with unmet
medical need using GeneRide technology platform. LB-001 is the
company's lead product candidate for the treatment of Methylmalonic
Acidemia (MMA), a life-threatening disease that presents at birth.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Tel: (973)313-1887
Fax: (973)833-0399
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
LOUISIANA: 2003 Judgment Remains Unpaid, Perrin Claims
------------------------------------------------------
The case, Joseph Perrin, Plaintiff, v. State of Louisiana and the
Department of Transportation and Development, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-00165-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La., March 18, 2020) arises under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America as Plaintiff pleads that the State of Louisiana and its
Department of Transportation denied and continue to deny Plaintiff
and proposed class of claimants the equal protection of the law
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Plaintiff proceeds individually and proposes to proceed on
behalf of all plaintiffs and claimants that are part of the case
Jean Boudreaux, et al. v. State of Louisiana, Department of
Transportation, et al., Case No. 71408, who hold a valid judgment
of liability from July 7, 1999 and a valid unpaid judgment of
damages against the State of Louisiana, Department of
Transportation dated August 5, 2003.
In 1984, Jean Boudreaux and more than 1,280 residents and property
and business owners filed a lawsuit in the 21st Judicial District,
Parish of Tangipahoa against the State of Louisiana and its
Department of Transportation for the State's role and culpability
following the construction of a section of Interstate Highway I-12
across the Tangipahoa River flood plain near the town of Robert,
Louisiana that has resulted in severe flooding in Tangipahoa Parish
both upstream and downstream of Interstate Highway 12 in 1983.
On August 5, 2003, Boudreaux and the class obtained a valid
judgment for damages against the Defendant, the State of Louisiana,
Department of Transportation in specific amounts owed to the class
and its members. The judgment for the more than 1,280 class members
exceeded $91,000,000 and additionally includes interest from the
date of judicial demand along with court costs and expert witness
fees.
Despite repeated requests by the class since 2003 for payment of
the valid judgment, the State of Louisiana has refused to pay the
judgment. Over the past 16 years, the State set aside money into a
class escrow account that has never been paid out to Boudreaux or
any member of the class. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric R. Nowak, Esq.
HARRELL & NOWAK, LLC
909 Poydras St., Suite 1600
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 522-7885
Facsimile: (504) 528-3131
Email: enowak@hnjustice.com
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grove and Garcia Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Slade Grove and Eugene Garcia, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Lowe's
Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00586-DWL (D. Ariz., March 20, 2020) is a class action
brought by Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons employed by Defendants, arising from Defendants'
willful violations of the Arizona Wage Act.
According to the complaint, Defendants do not compensate their
Hourly Managers for all hours worked; instead, Defendants require
their Hourly Managers including the Plaintiffs to perform
compensable work tasks before and after their scheduled shifts and
during their unpaid meal periods, when they are not clocked into
Defendants' timekeeping system. These policies result in Hourly
Managers not being paid for all time worked, including overtime.
Throughout their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs were
required to work a substantial amount of unpaid time, including
overtime, as part of their jobs as Hourly Managers.
Lowe's Companies, Inc. is an American retail company specializing
in home improvement.
Lowe's Home Centers Inc. retails home improvement, building
materials, and home appliances. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 840-5900
Email: rob@hbsslaw.com
leonard@hbsslaw.com
– and –
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebailey@sommerspc.com
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Underpays Hourly Managers, Ester & Rookey Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KINDSAY ESTES and BRIAN ROOKEY, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC. Defendants,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00289-JM (E.D. Ark., March 18, 2020) arises from
Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as Hourly Managers. Estes
worked as an AR Department Manager from November 2015 until August
2018 and as a Service Manager from August 2018 until July 2019.
Rookey worked as a Freight Flow Department Manager from November
2012 until January 2017, as a Support Manager Night Ops. From
January 2017 until January 2019, and as Night Ops. Department
Supervisor from January 2019 until May 2019.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs were required to work a
substantial amount of unpaid time, including overtime, as part of
their jobs as Hourly Managers throughout their employment with
Defendants. Allegedly, Defendants regularly and repeatedly failed
to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for all the time they spent
on the work activities.
Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages owed, plus costs and
attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief under the Arkansas
Wage Act.
Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC are American
retail companies specializing in home improvement. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Tel: (248)355-0300
Emails: kstoops@sommerspc.com
rjohnston@sommerspc.com
- and -
John Holleman, Esq.
Timothy A. Steadman, Esq.
HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1008 West Second Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Tel: 501-975-5040
Fax: 501-975-5043
Emails: jholleman@johnholleman.net
tim@johnholleman.net
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Underpays Hourly Managers, Fitzsimmons et al Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KENT FITZSIMMONS and NICOLE WEEKLEY, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01109-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill., March 18, 2020) arises
from Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as Hourly Managers,
Fitzsimmons as an Electrical Manager from October 2015 until
January 2018 and Weekley as a Receiving Manager in 2016 and as a
Back End Manager over Delivery, Stocking, and Unload Crew from 2016
until 2018.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs were required to work a
substantial amount of unpaid time, including overtime, as part of
their jobs as Hourly Managers throughout their employment with
Defendants. Allegedly, Defendants regularly and repeatedly failed
to compensate Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Arkansas Class for all the
time they spent on the work activities.
Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages owed, plus costs and
attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief under the Arkansas
Wage Act.
Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC are American
retail companies specializing in home improvement. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
Mark R. Miller, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
55 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (312)346-2222
Emails: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
mrm@wexlerwallace.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Elaina s. Bailey, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Tel: (248)355-0300
Emails: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ebailey@sommerspc.com
LUMBERJAXES: Deducts Tips From Axe-Throwing Coaches, Arnold Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANDREW ARNOLD, on behalf of himself and similarly
situated employees, Plaintiffs v. LUMBERJAXES, LLC, LUMBERJAXES SH,
LLC, EAST AXE, LLC d/b/a LUMBERJAXES MONROEVILLE, CRANBERRY AXE,
LLC d/b/a LUMBERJAXES CRANBERRY, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00407-RJC (W.D. Penn., March 23, 2020) arises from
Defendant's unlawful employment policy in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
Plaintiff Arnold and all other similarly situated individuals were,
or are employed by Defendants as axe-throwing coaches during the
past three years. Plaintiff Arnold began working for Defendants on
or about September 15, 2019 and his last day of work was on or
about February 11, 2020.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Arnold typically received
tips from customers. However, 10% of all tips were deducted from
axe throwing coaches and given to the manager on duty in accordance
with Defendants' policy that was instituted on or about December
17, 2019.
Lumberjaxes, LLC, Lumberjaxes SH, LLC, East Axe, LLC d/b/a
Lumberjaxes Monroeville, Cranberry Axe, LLC d/b/a Lumberjaxes
Cranberry are Pennsylvania corporations that own and operate
competitive axe throwing venue. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq.
HARDIN THOMPSON, P.C.
The Frick Building
437 Grant St., Ste. 620
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Tel: 412-315-7195
Email: kenhardin@hardinlawpc.net
LVNV FUNDING: Faces Hill Suit over Debt Collection Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HILL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LVNV FUNDING LLC and RESURGENT CAPITAL
SERVICES L.P., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01933 (N.D. Ill., March
23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants failed to adequately disclose her rights on a debt
collection letter that she received from Resurgent, which collects
debts on behalf of LVNV, for a Credit One Bank, N.A. consumer
credit account. The letter did not indicate the Plaintiff's right
to obtain information as to the name and address of the original
creditor which violates the FDCPA.
LVNV Funding LLC is a debt collection agency operator with a
registered agent located at 801 Adlai Stevenson Drive, Springfield,
Illinois.
Resurgent Capital Services L.P. is a South Carolina-based manager
and servicer of domestic and international consumer debt portfolios
for credit grantors and debt buyers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 726-6160
Facsimile: (312) 698-5054
E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com
MALLINCKRODT PLC: 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund's Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2019, that the company faces a
putative class action suit entitled, 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund
et al. v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al.
In December 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and more than thirty other pharmaceutical manufacturers
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, captioned 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund et al. v.
Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al.
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons and
entities that indirectly purchased, paid, or provided reimbursement
for the purchase of defendants' generic drugs, other than for
resale, from July 1, 2009, to the present.
The lawsuit generally alleges that defendants conspired to allocate
customers and fix prices for generic pharmaceutical drugs beginning
in July 2009.
The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief based on
violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and various state
antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, City of Rockford
v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.
In April 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The case is captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.,
et al. The complaint was subsequently amended to, among other
things, include an additional named plaintiff and additional
defendants.
As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories, excluding any
Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities and certain
others, that paid for Acthar Gel from August 2007 to the present.
Plaintiff alleges violations of federal antitrust and RICO laws, as
well as various state law claims in connection with the
distribution and sale of Acthar Gel.
On January 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint, which was granted in part on January 25,
2019, dismissing one of two named plaintiffs and all claims with
the exception of Plaintiff's federal and state antitrust claims.
The remaining allegation in the case is that the Company engaged in
anti-competitive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price
of Acthar Gel. To this end, Plaintiff alleges that the Company
unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market
by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen and conspired with the
other named defendants by selling Acthar Gel through an exclusive
distributor. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself in this matter.
Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to
reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any
loss associated with this lawsuit."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces Castillo Class Suit in E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2019, that the company has been
named as defendant in a putative class action suit entitled, Cesar
Castillo, Inc., et al. v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al.
In February 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and more than 30 other pharmaceutical manufacturers in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
captioned Cesar Castillo, Inc., et al. v. Actavis Holdco U.S.,
Inc., et al.
The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all persons or
entities that directly purchased certain generic drugs from
defendants or from one of defendants' direct customers-where the
direct customer is alleged to be a completely involved
co-conspirator-between July 1, 2009, and the present.
The complaint has similar allegations as the 1199SEIU National
Benefit Fund litigation and seeks damages for violations of
Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.
In January 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and its CEO in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et
al.
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased Mallinckrodt's publicly traded securities on a domestic
exchange between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017.
The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company made false or
misleading statements related to Acthar Gel and Synacthen to
artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock. In
particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the Company to
provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term
sustainability of Acthar Gel revenues, and the exposure of Acthar
Gel to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.
On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.
The Patel complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in
the Shenk lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in
the Shenk lawsuit.
On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Amy T. Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The Schwartz complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company between July 14, 2014 and January 18, 2017
and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit.
On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Fulton County Employees' Retirement System v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company, its CEO
and former CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. The Fulton County complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of shareholders during the same period of time as that set
forth in the Schwartz lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those
set forth in the Shenk lawsuit.
On March 27, 2017, four separate plaintiff groups moved to
consolidate the pending cases and to be appointed as lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated case. Since that time, two of the
plaintiff groups have withdrawn their motions. Lead plaintiff was
designated by the court on March 9, 2018.
Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 18, 2018,
alleging a class period from July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017, the
Company, its CEO, its former CFO, and Executive Vice President,
Hugh O'Neill, as defendants, and containing similar claims, but
further alleging misstatements regarding payer reimbursement
restrictions for Acthar Gel.
On August 30, 2018, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
claims against Mr. O'Neill without prejudice. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted in part, and
denied in part by the court on July 30, 2019.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.
MARINER FINANCE: Final Approval of Hale Suit Settlement Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City's order of final approval of a consumer class
action settlement against Mariner Finance, LLC in the case, GERALD
BURTON, v. CLAUDINE HALE, ET AL, Case No. 3346 (Md. Spec. App.).
The class action stemmed from an alleged violation by
Appellee-Mariner Finance under the Credit Grantors Closed End
Credit Provisions ("CLEC"). In October 2016, Appellee-Claudine
Hale obtained a loan from Mariner Finance, LLC and the two parties
entered into a promissory note. The promissory note for this loan
was governed by CLEC. The principal amount of the loan was
$4,020.68 with interest accruing in the amount of $1,799.07.
Appellant Gerald Burton also entered into a promissory note with
Appellee-Mariner Finance for a principal amount of $10,130 with
total scheduled interest of $4,575.32. In both Appellant and
Appellee-Hale's cases, Appellee-Mariner Finance allegedly charged
refinance and insurance charges, retaining a portion of the
insurance charges. In Appellee-Hale's Complaint, she alleged that
Appellee-Mariner Finance's practice of charging consumers insurance
charges and then retaining any part of those charges is
impermissible.
On Jan. 4, 2018, Appellee-Hale, the named plaintiff, filed the
original complaint against Appellee-Mariner Finance, LLC alleging
that Mariner Finance charged her and a class of Maryland citizens
refinance and insurances charges not permitted under CLEC.
Appellee-Hale alleged that Appellee-Mariner Finance charged a total
of $14,494,149.00 in illegal charges for all 29,675 potential class
members. In Appellee-Hale's Amended Class Action Complaint, filed
on February 23, 2018, Appellee-Hale asserted that Appellee-Mariner
Finance refinanced her loan, and the loans to all class members,
and included a fee for the refinancing. This fee was not accounted
for in the simple interest rate causing Appellee-Mariner Finance to
charge members of the class a simple interest rate in an amount
greater than what was agreed to in the promissory notes and greater
than what is permitted under CLEC.
Appellee-Hale, as the class representative and named plaintiff,
filed a motion for class certification on March 1, 2018. This
motion was accompanied by numerous exhibits and a memorandum of law
supporting class certification. On April 6, 2018, Appellee-Mariner
Finance filed an opposition to the motion for class certification.
Appellee-Hale then filed a reply to the opposition motion. Both
sides argued the merits of class certification in terms of the
factual basis and legal authority for certifying the class.
On March 9, 2018, Appellee-Mariner Finance filed a motion to compel
arbitration and stay the litigation. Appellee-Mariner Finance
argued that, as a threshold matter, it could compel not only
Appellee-Hale, but every other class member, to individually
arbitrate claims against Mariner Finance, LLC pursuant to the
agreements signed by the class members when engaging Mariner
Finance, LLC for loans. Appellee-Hale filed an opposition to the
motion to arbitrate.
The circuit court scheduled a hearing on Appellee-Hale's motion to
certify the class and Appellee-Mariner Finance's motion to compel
arbitration. Just before the hearing on May 21, 2018 was to
commence, Appellee-Hale and Appellee-Mariner Finance produced a
binding and detailed term sheet for settlement. The circuit court
granted preliminary approval of the common fund settlement worth
$1.5 million on Aug. 3, 2018 following a hearing. Furthermore,
Appellee-Mariner Finance paid in excess of $50,000 in settlement
administration costs, separate and distinct from the common fund
that was to be distributed to class members. The order entering
preliminary approval also provided for the administration of notice
to class members.
Following the grant of preliminary approval of the settlement, the
Appellant filed his objection on Oct. 3, 2018. Then, on Nov. 16,
2018, Appellee-Hale and Appellee-Mariner Finance filed a Joint
Motion for Final Settlement Approval. The circuit court held a
fairness hearing on Dec. 17, 2018. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the circuit court approved the settlement, certifying the
class under Maryland Rule 2-231(b)(3).
Sole objector, Appellant-Gerald Burton, now appeals the grant of
final approval. In his opening brief, Burton presents three
related questions: (i) Whether the Circuit Court can determine the
fairness of a class action settlement when it was not provided any
evidence and made no determination related to the value of the
claims asserted; (ii) Whether the Settlement was fair, reasonable,
and adequate where the Named Plaintiff presented a Settlement that
recovered less than 1% of the damages demanded in the Complaint;
and (iii) whether a Circuit Court has authority to approve a class
action settlement where class members have not been identified and
the size of the class is unknown.
The Appellant filed a Reply Brief in which he raises two new issues
in addition to reiterating arguments presented in the original
brief. First, he argues that the trial court erroneously
considered the risk of arbitration as a factor in valuing the
settlement. Second, he avers that Appellee-Hale was not an
adequate representative for the class because she was in a
factually and legally different position than other potential class
members, including Appellant, which made Appellee-Hale unable to
recover damages under the law.
The Appellate Court has distilled the Appellant's five issues
presented to the following two: (i) Whether Appellee-Hale was an
adequate representative for a properly defined class given that
Appellee-Mariner Finance had not collected more than the principal
amount of Appellee-Hale's loan; and (ii) Whether the settlement
approved by the circuit court was fair, reasonable, and adequate
under the circumstances and in light of the information presented
to the court.
The Appellate Court finds that the first issue is not properly
before the Court and, in any event, was properly decided by the
circuit court. The second issue is also resolved in favor of the
Appellees as the Appellate Court finds that the settlement was
fair, reasonable, and adequate. As such, the circuit court was
fully informed, had the authority to approve this class action
settlement, and did not abuse its discretion in so doing.
The Appellate Court concludes that in terms of the adequacy of the
class representative, it finds that the issue is not properly
before the Court, and even if the issue were properly presented,
the issue is meritless. Moreover, the circuit court did not err in
approving the class action settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate., the Appellate Court finds. The court's analysis
articulated a step-by-step analysis as set forth in the seminal
case of Shenker. The circuit court addressed both the procedural
and substantive fairness of the settlement taking into account the
appropriate factors weighing against the class. As such, the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion, the Appellate Court
opines.
For these reasons, the Appellate Court upheld the circuit ruling on
the class suit settlement. The costs will be paid by the
Appellant.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/MGlD5V from Leagle.com.
MARRIOTT INT'L: Suits Over Data Security Breach Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc., said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend lawsuits related to data security incident.
On November 30, 2018, the company announced a data security
incident involving unauthorized access to the Starwood reservations
database.
Working with leading security experts, the company determines that
there was unauthorized access to the Starwood network since 2014
and that an unauthorized party had copied information from the
Starwood reservations database and taken steps towards removing it.
While the company's forensic review of the incident is now
complete, certain data analytics work continues. The Starwood
reservations database is no longer used for business operations.
Following the company's announcement of the Data Security Incident,
approximately 100 lawsuits were filed by consumers and others
against the company in U.S. federal, U.S. state and Canadian courts
related to the incident.
All but one of the U.S. cases have been consolidated and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, pursuant to orders of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation. The plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canadian
cases, who generally purport to represent various classes of
consumers, generally claim to have been harmed by alleged actions
and/or omissions by the Company in connection with the Data
Security Incident and assert a variety of common law and statutory
claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and
attorneys' fees, and other related relief.
Among the U.S. cases consolidated in the MDL proceeding is a
putative class action lawsuit that was filed against us and certain
of our current officers and directors on December 1, 2018, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws in connection with
statements regarding the company's cybersecurity systems and
controls, and seeking certification of a class of affected persons,
unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other
related relief.
The MDL proceeding also includes two shareholder derivative
complaints that were filed on February 26, 2019 and March 15, 2019,
respectively, against the Company, certain of its officers and
certain of the members of our Board of Directors, alleging, among
other claims, breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust
enrichment, mismanagement and violations of the federal securities
laws, and seeking unspecified monetary damages and restitution,
changes to the Company's corporate governance and internal
procedures, costs and attorneys’ fees, and other related relief.
A third shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery on December 3, 2019 against the Company and
certain of its officers and certain current and former members of
our Board of Directors, alleging claims and seeking relief
generally similar to the claims made and relief sought in the other
two derivative cases.
This case will not be consolidated with the MDL proceeding.
The company disputes the allegations in the lawsuits described
above and are vigorously defending against such claims. The company
have filed motions to dismiss several of these cases, some of which
have been denied, but the cases generally remain at an early stage.
There has been some consolidation of the Canadian cases, with five
cases now pending across five provinces, and the company expect
there could be further consolidation in the future.
In addition, in April 2019, the company received a letter
purportedly on behalf of a shareholder of the Company (also one of
the named plaintiffs in the putative securities class action
described above) demanding that the company's Board of Directors
take action against the Company's current and certain former
officers and directors to recover damages for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties and related claims arising from the Data Security
Incident.
The Board of Directors has constituted a demand review committee to
investigate the claims made in the demand letter, and the committee
has retained independent counsel to assist with the investigation.
The committee's investigation is ongoing.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Marriott International, Inc., incorporated on September 19, 1997,
is a lodging company. As of December 31, 2017, the Company
operated, franchised, or licensed 6,520 properties across the
world, with 1,257,666 rooms. Marriott International operates in
three business segments: North American Full-Service, North
American Limited-Service and International. The company is based in
Bethesda, Maryland.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case HUMBERTO RAMIREZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:20-cv-02397 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2020) implicates Defendants'
longstanding policies and practices, which fail to properly
compensate non-exempt all service workers for service charge
payments remitted to them as wages and for work performed while
off-the-clock, and deny payment for all hours worked, including
gratuity payments, regular wages owed, and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff was employed as an in-room dining server and banquet
worker by Defendants at the Ritz Carlton, Westchester Hotel in
White Plains, New York.
Marriott International, Inc. is an American multinational
diversified hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad
portfolio of hotels and related lodging facilities.
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC is an American multinational
company that operates the luxury hotel chain known as The
Ritz-Carlton. The company has 101 luxury hotels and resorts in 30
countries and territories with 27,650 rooms. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nestico, Esq.
6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone: (510) 740-2946
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
– and –
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Kristabel Sanchez, Esq.
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com
– and -
William M. Hogg, Esq.
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 338-2560
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: whogg@schneiderwallace.com
MCCARTHY FORD: Patterson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Acts
-------------------------------------------------------------
GERMAINE PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MCCARTHY FORD, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01859 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2020) alleges that the
Defendant calls unsuspecting parties including the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated on their telephones with pre-recorded
messages and automated messages in order to sell them goods and
services as part of its marketing strategy in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant's unsolicited calls using a messaging platform had
caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion of his privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion. Defendant's call also inconvenienced Plaintiff and
caused disruption to his daily life.
McCarthy Ford, Inc. is a Chicago, Illinois-based company that
operates a new and used car dealership. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: 305-479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
MGM RESORTS: Cameron Hits Data Breach, Compromised Guest Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Scott Cameron, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MGM Resorts International,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00429, (D. Nev., February 28, 2020),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs
together with other relief resulting from negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment and violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
Nevada's Consumer Fraud Act.
MGM is a global entertainment company featuring hotels and casinos
with restaurant, nightlife and retail offerings. MGM collects,
stores and maintains its customers' Personally Identifiable
Information. In July 7, 2019, hackers gained access to MGM's
information systems and got access to said data of potentially more
than 200 million MGM customers, to include first and last names,
driver's license numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers, email
addresses, and dates of birth.
Since 2018, Cameron has made at least two reservations at the MGM
Grand Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, including a three-night stay
in August 2018 and a four-night stay in April 2019. He claims to
have provided first name, last name, email address, password,
telephone number, date of birth, home address and security question
answer in order to sign into his M-life Rewards program
account.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark J. Bourassa, Esq.
Jennifer A. Fornetti, Esq.
THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP
2350 W. Charleston Blvd., #100
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: (702) 851-2180
Fax: (702) 851-2189
Email: mbourassa@blgwins.com
jfornetti@blgwins.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: (412) 322-9243
Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1350 Columbia St. Ste. 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1900
Facsimile: 619) 756-6991
MOUNTAIN WEST FARM: Drange Suit Removed to District of Montana
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jodie Drange, Andy Drange, each individually and
on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Mountain West Farm
Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Does 1-100, Case No. DV 19-01733,
was removed from the Montana District Court, Thirteenth Judicial
District, Yellowstone County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana on March 26, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00030-SPW to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issue.
Mountain West is a multi-line insurance company, serving the needs
of individuals, families, and businesses throughout Wyoming and
Montana for over 70 years.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Martha Sheehy, Esq.
SHEEHY LAW FIRM
P. O. Box 584
Billings, MT 59103-0584
Phone: (406) 252-2004
Fax: (406) 248-7847
Email: msheehy@sheehylawfirm.com
- and -
Randall G. Nelson, Esq.
NELSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
2619 St. Johns Avenue, Suite E
Billings, MT 59102
Phone: (406) 867-7000
Fax: (406) 867-0252
Email: rgnelson@nelsonlawmontana.com
NATIONAL CAR CURE: Day Sues over Robocalls
------------------------------------------
NATHEN DAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL CAR CURE LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, MATRIX FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, MATRIX WARRANTY SOLUTIONS, INC., a
Nevada corporation, GUSTAV RENNY, an individual, JOHN DOE, an
unknown entity, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00104 (D. Neb., March
18, 2020) is a class action complaint seeking to stop Defendants
for their alleged illegal practice of making unauthorized calls in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint claims that Defendant Renny hired John Doe to make
telemarketing calls and play prerecorded voice messages to
thousands of residential and cellular phones around the country
simultaneously to increase sales of the Matrix Entities'
Contracts.
Plaintiff received at least 3 phone calls that used a prerecorded
voice advertising auto warranties from Defendants numbers
(402)549-3603. When Plaintiff responded to the automated calls, he
was connected with a representative of National Car Cure named
Victoria Reyes who then tried to solicit him for the sale of a
Vehicle Contract from the Matrix Entities. Plaintiff never
consented to receive calls from Defendants and never requested them
to contact him in any manner.
Plaintiff asserts that his statutory rights were violated by
Defendants' calls and thereby causing actual damages, including
annoyance, intrusion on privacy and seclusion, and wasted
Plaintiff's time and money.
Gustav Renny owns and operates several corporate entities,
including National Car Cure.
National Car Cure LLC, Matric Financial Services, LLC, and Matrix
Warranty Solutions, Inc. sell "vehicle Service Contracts" that
resemble auto insurance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
480 S. Ellsworth Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
Tel: 650-781-8000
Fax: 650-648-0705
Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com
NATIOWIDE MUTUAL: Sued by Sweeney for Violating Duty Under ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Sweeney and Bryan Marshall, as individuals, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Nationwide
Savings Plan v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company; Nationwide
Life Insurance Company; the Human Resources Committee of the Boards
of Directors of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company; the Investment
Committee of the Nationwide Savings Plan; the Administrative
Committee of the Nationwide Savings Plan; and John and Jane Does
1-60, Case No. 1:20-cv-00242-MRB (S.D. Ohio, March 26, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for their violations of the
fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions provisions of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The Savings Plan is a tax-qualified defined contribution pension
plan subject to the provisions of ERISA. The Defendants are all
fiduciaries and parties-in-interest to the Savings Plan.
The lawsuit is about the prohibited transfer of employees'
retirement assets to the Defendants and the detrimental effect
these transfers had on the Plaintiffs' retirement security. When
dealing with the Plan and its assets, the Plaintiffs contend that
the Defendants were required by ERISA to act prudently and solely
in the interest of the Plan's participants, and for the exclusive
purpose of providing benefits to participants.
As of December 31, 2018, the Savings Plan had approximately $5.7
billion in assets and 50,000 participants. Each year, thousands of
Nationwide employees and former employees contribute, on average
and in the aggregate, over $250 million of their income to the
Plan. The Savings Plan is considered a "mega" plan given its large
size. Combined with the investment sophistication of all the Plan
fiduciaries and their unique access to information, the Plan and
its fiduciaries have enormous bargaining power to receive superior
investment products and services at extraordinarily low cost.
The Investment Committee selected and maintained the Guaranteed
Investment Fund ("Guaranteed Fund") as an investment option for the
Plan. The Defendants' conduct in connection with the Guaranteed
Fund impaired the Plaintiffs' retirement security while providing
Nationwide enormous profits and billions of dollars to be used for
its own business purposes. The Guaranteed Fund is the single
largest investment in the Savings Plan.
As of December 31, 2018, $1.7 billion or 30% of the Plan's assets
were invested in the Guaranteed Fund. To the best of Plaintiffs'
knowledge based on the available information, approximately $1
billion of the Savings Plan's assets were transferred to the
Guaranteed Fund over the past six years. Certain Participants were
invested into the Guaranteed Fund by default without their consent
and in contravention of applicable regulations. The default options
are referred to as the "qualified default or investment
alternatives" or "QDIAs."
The Plaintiffs note that NLIC pays higher crediting rates to
certain unaffiliated plans that invest in its general account than
it pays to the Savings Plan. The Investment Committee has continued
to maintain the Guaranteed Fund as a default investment option and
an investment alternative for the Savings Plan despite this.
Plaintiffs are harmed as a result, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are participants in the Savings Plan.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance and financial
services companies, focusing on domestic property and casualty
insurance, life insurance and retirement savings, asset management
and strategic investments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric H. Zagrans, Esq.
ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC
5077 Waterford Drive, Suite 302
Elyria, OH 44035
Phone: (216) 771-1000
Email: eric@zagrans.com
- and -
Karen Handorf, Esq.
Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
Scott M. Lempert, Esq.
Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, N.W., 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
NP INC: Faces McKinley Suit Over Robocalls
------------------------------------------
RYAN MCKINLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. NP, INC., d/b/a USMTG, a Florida
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:20-cv-80485-RS (S.D. Fla., March
24, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in
negligently or willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant utilizes prerecorded telemarketing calls to market
and advertise its business and services, including at least eight
calls to the Plaintiff from December 31, 2019 to January 9, 2020.
The Plaintiff has never signed-up for, and has never used, the
Defendant's services, and has never had any form of business
relationship with the Defendant. Additionally, the Plaintiff has
been registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since November
14, 2006.
NP, Inc., d/b/a USMTG, is a Florida-based mortgage company with a
24-year history of helping people become new home owners and
refinancing others into a better financial situation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 524-2820
Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
E-mail: seth@epllc.com
– and –
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Rd., Ste. 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
E-Mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com
NRG ENERGY: Suits Against XOOM Ongoing in Maryland & New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that XOOM Energy, LLC (XOOM)
continues to defend class action suits pending in Maryland and New
York.
On June 1, 2018, the Company completed the acquisition of XOOM
Energy, LLC (XOOM), an electricity and natural gas retailer
operating in 19 states, Washington, D.C. and Canada, for
approximately $213 million, including working capital and other
adjustments of $48 million. The acquisition increased NRG's retail
portfolio by approximately 395,000 RCEs or 300,000 customers.
XOOM is a defendant in two purported class action lawsuits pending
in Maryland and New York. The plaintiffs generally claim that they
did not receive the savings they were promised in their natural gas
and electricity bills.
The parties in the Maryland lawsuit are briefing summary judgment
and class certification.
In the New York case, XOOM filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted on September 21, 2018, later entering judgment in
XOOM's favor on September 24, 2018. The plaintiffs in the New York
case appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On July 26, 2019, the Second Circuit reversed the judgment of the
district court and remanded to the district court with instructions
that plaintiffs be permitted to proceed on their proposed amended
complaint.
NRG Energy said, "This matter was known and accrued for at the time
of the acquisition."
NRG Energy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
integrated power company in the United States. The company is
involved in the generation of electricity using fossil fuel and
nuclear sources. The company was founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey.
NUVISION FEDERAL CREDIT: McMullin Sues Over Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------
The case, PAUL MCMULLIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NUVISION FEDERAL CREDIT UNION and
DENALI, A division of Nuvision Credit Union, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-00586 is a class action brought by the Plaintiff to stop
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited debt collection
robocalls to the telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by Defendants' conduct in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Defendants sought to collect a debt
from someone who is not Mr. McMullin on each of the calls. When the
calls first began, Mr. McMullin picked up the phone and informed
Defendants that he was not the person Defendants was looking for.
Yet, Defendants continued to harass Mr. McMullin with calls.
The calls violated the TCPA because Defendants placed these calls
with an artificial or prerecorded voice and/or a predictive dialer
with the present capacity to function as an autodialer by
generating random or sequential telephone numbers and dialing those
numbers.
The Defendants caused Plaintiff and the members of the Class actual
harm and cognizable legal injury by making these automated and
autodialed calls.
Nuvision Federal Credit Union is one of California's leading credit
unions with over $1.3 billion in assets and 87,000 members. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
– and –
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Miskokomon Sues Over Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MISKOKOMON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
INC. and OX CAR CARE, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-03069-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., March 19, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated consumers that have their phone numbers registered with
the National Do Not Call Registry, alleges that Palmer
Administrative Services, Inc. sent him autodialed calls through Ox
Car Care, LLC in an attempt to promote Palmer's vehicle warranty
protection products without obtaining prior written express
consent.
Palmer Administrative Services, Inc. is an Ocean, New Jersey-based
provider of extended vehicle warranties to vehicle owners in the
U.S.
Ox Car Care, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Irvine, California. It maintains the website
oxcarcare.com that markets vehicle warranty protection plans. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN P.A.
1072 Madison Ave. Suite 1
Lakewood, NJ 08701
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
PATRIZIA'S RESTAURANT: Chavez Seeks OT for Food Preparers & Cooks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONZO CHAVEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff v. PATRIZIA'S RESTAURANT GROUP LLC d/b/a
PATRIZIA'S, PATRIZIA OF LONG ISLAND INC. d/b/a PATRIZIA'S, PATRIZIA
OF LONG ISLAND 2 LLC d/b/a PATRIZIA OF LONG ISLAND, PATRIZIA'S OF
MASPETH LLC d/b/a PATRIZIA'S, PATRIZIA'S OF 2ND AVENUE LLC d/b/a
PATRIZIA'S, PATRIZIAS OF STATEN ISLAND LLC d/b/a PATRIZIAS OF
STATEN ISLAND, FAMILY GROUP ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PATRIZIA PIZZA
& PASTA, SPM GROUP, LLC d/b/a PATRIZIA'S OF LONG ISLAND, GENNARO
ALAIO, and GIACOMO ALAIO, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01430
(E.D.N.Y.) is class and collective action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a food preparer and
cook in or around September 2019 at Patrizia's located at 358
Vanderbilt Motor Pkwy, Hauppauge, NY 11788, but he was terminated
in or around December 2019 by managers Jerry and Antonio.
Plaintiff and Class members assert that Defendants failed to:
-- compensate them their overtime premium of time and a half
for all hours worked over 40;
-- compensate them their spread of hours premium;
-- provide them proper wage statements for each payment period
and accurately reflect the number of hours worked and their proper
compensation; and
-- provide them with wage notices at hiring and at dates of
all wage changes thereafter.
Defendants Patrizia's are corporate restaurants founded, owned and
operated as a family business for over 25 years by brothers
Defendants Gennaro Alaio and Giacomo Alaio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Selig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Tel: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Taggart Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Taggart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Honorable Jeffrey Saltz; The Honorable Francesco
Ott; The Honorable An Lazaras; Honorable Susan Pikes Gatman; in
their personal capacity; WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.; PHELAN HALLINAN &
SCHMEIG LLP; REED SMITH LLP; Case No. 2:20-cv-01638-GJP (E.D. Pa.,
March 26, 2020), is brought to against the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for civil rights violations during the course of
litigation involving a foreclosure action filed by Wells Fargo
against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2010.
The Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,
entered a judgment in the foreclosure action in favor of Wells
Fargo Bank N.A. against Kenneth Taggart on March 27, 2018.
Undisputed facts in the case reveal that Wells Fargo Bank N.A. did
not actually own the mortgage when it filed its foreclosure on
April 1, 2010. The undisputed facts reveal that Wells Fargo did not
own the note and mortgage until April 5, 2010; 4 days after the
complaint was filed, depriving Wells Fargo "Standing", subject
matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and in rem
jurisdiction.
Furthermore, Wells Fargo Bank filed its foreclosure action claiming
it was a successor in interest to originator of the note and
mortgage ... an entity known as "American Partners Bank F.S.B." The
note and mortgage were claimed to have originated on December 16,
2008, by "American Partners Bank F.S.B." was actually merged out of
existence over 11 months prior to alleged origination on, January
20, 2008. "American Partners Bank F.S.B." was merged out of
existence, and a new entity was created on January 20, 2008, known
as Waterfield Bank N.A. Despite this evidence, the court
erroneously concluded that Waterfield Bank N.A. was the original
lender.
Finally, during the course of the litigation, the Court of Common
Pleas, ignored the evidence in the case. The Court of Common Pleas
ignored the evidence that Wells Fargo Dank did not own the note and
mortgage on April 1, 2010, when the foreclosure complaint was filed
and not effectuate service of pre-foreclosure noticed pursuant to
the mortgage contract as admitted by Wells Fargo.
The court slow inexplicably, without evidence, concluded that
Waterfield Bank was a lender who erroneously created a mortgage
using the name "American Partners Bank F.S.B." without any evidence
that they had created the mortgage, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Kenneth Taggart is a resident of Holland, Pennsylvania.
Wells Fargo Bank provides banking, mortgage, investing, credit
card, and personal, small business, and commercial financial
services.[BN]
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Suits Related to Line 901 Incident Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
company continues to defend several class action suits related to
the Line 901 incident.
In May 2015, the company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific
Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following
the release, the company shut down the pipeline and initiated its
emergency response plan.
A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Office of
Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of
Emergency Management, was established for the response effort.
Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted
shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified
Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been
dissolved.
The company's estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on
relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,934
barrels; of this amount, the company estimate that 598 barrels
reached the Pacific Ocean.
Shortly following the Line 901 incident, the company established a
claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the
release to contact us to discuss their damage claims. The company
received a number of claims through the claims line and the company
had been processing those claims and making payments as
appropriate. In addition, the company had also had nine class
action lawsuits filed against it, six of which have been
administratively consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different
classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the
release. To date, the court has certified three sub-classes of
claimants and denied certification of the other proposed sub-class.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the
certification of the oil-industry sub-class, so the remaining
sub-classes that have been certified include (i) commercial
fishermen who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in
the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or persons or
businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such areas; and
(ii) beachfront property and easement owners whose properties were
oiled.
The company is also defending a separate class action lawsuit
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line
903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well as
compensatory damages.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminalling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company
was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas.
PLS FINANCIAL: Bid to Compel Discovery in Vine Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUCINDA VINE, KRISTY POND, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PLS FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC. and PLS LOAN STORE OF TEXAS, INC., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 4:18-CV-00450 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern district of Texas, Sherman Division,
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Discovery.
PLS is a short-term loan provider. To qualify for a PLS loan,
borrowers must present a post-dated or blank personal check for the
amount borrowed in addition to a finance charge. It tells
borrowers it will not deposit the check or pursue criminal charges
to recover the loan. But when a borrower misses a payment, PLS
will deposit the check, threaten her with criminal prosecution if
the check bounces, and misrepresent to the local district attorney
that her check was meant to be cashed. The borrower will then
receive letters from the district attorney advising her to pay PLS
or face criminal charges.
Plaintiffs Lucinda Vine and Kristy Pond have filed a class action
lawsuit in the Western District of Texas against PLS on behalf of
borrowers who received such letters. The case has since been
transferred to Eastern District of Texas.
On July 19, 2018, the District Court issued the Order Governing
Proceedings. In the Order, it instructed the parties to produce a
copy of all documents, electronically stored information, witness
statements, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or
control of the disclosing party that are relevant to the claim or
defense of any party. Under the Order Governing Proceedings,
"relevant" is defined by Local Rule CV-26(d).
On April 1, 2019, the Court entered its Amended Memorandum Opinion
and Order certifying the Plaintiffs' class. Per the Court's Order,
the certified class includes: Texas residents who (1) received a
payday loan (as defined by Tex. Fin. Code Section 393.221) from a
PLS Loan Store, (2) failed to timely pay back the payday loan, (3)
had a criminal complaint filed against them by PLS Loan Store
and/or PLS Financial Services after December 17, 2011 for a bad
check to collect or recover this payday loan, (4) received a letter
from the District Attorney advising them to pay off the payday loan
and certain fees or face criminal prosecution, and (5) paid some or
all of the fees referenced in the letter.
Shortly thereafter, PLS appealed the Court's Orders and filed the
Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeals.
Following the entrance of the Court's Order certifying a class
action and PLS' appeal and Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending
Appeals, the Plaintiffs filed the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Discovery on May 31, 2019. Since the Plaintiffs' filed their
Motion to Compel, the Court has denied PLS' Motion to Stay.
In Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery, they aver that PLS has
inappropriately objected to 11 interrogatories and 24 requests for
production served on PLS. The requested discovery falls into
several categories, according to the Plaintiffs. Those categories,
as characterized by the Plaintiffs, include: (1) Interrogatories
Nos. 1 and 2 and Requests for Production Nos. 1 and 2 which pertain
to potential class members; (2) Interrogatories Nos. 3 through 10
and Requests for Production Nos. 3 through 11 which pertain to
claims in the case and the size and scope of the class; (3)
Interrogatory No. 8 and Requests for Production Nos. 12 through 15
which relate to information and documents of proposed class
members; and (4) Requests for Production Nos. 16 and 17 which
pertains to PLS' net worth.
The Plaintiffs argue that the requested discovery should be granted
as PLS has improperly objected to the interrogatories and requests
for production. More specifically, they argue that PLS' Motion to
Stay does not provide a basis for objecting to discovery because
the case should not be stayed. Further, they contend that they are
entitled to discover the scope and size of the proposed class and
that the interrogatories and requests for production go to the
same. The Plaintiffs also argue that they are entitled to discover
information and documents relating to the absent class members.
The requested discovery, the Plaintiffs conclude, is also narrowly
tailored and thus should be permitted.
On June 14, 2019, PLS filed the Defendants' Response in Opposition
to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery. It argues that the
Court should deny the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery for
several independent reasons. First, PLS argues that the case
should be stayed. Second, it argues that the Plaintiffs' Motion
fails to challenge numerous objections asserted by the Defendants,
and does not even mention over half a dozen requests to which they
apparently seek to compel a supplemental response. On this basis
alone, PLS argues, the Plaintiffs' Motion should be denied. Third,
PLS contends that for the requests/objections the Plaintiffs do
challenge, the Court should sustain the Defendants' objections.
Discovery should not be permitted, PLS insists, because the
Plaintiffs' attempts are geared toward discovery of the absent
class members which PLS argues is only permissible
precertification. Further, it objects to the Plaintiffs' attempt
to discover information outside the time period allegedly covered
by the class as certified by the Court. Finally, PLS objects to
the Plaintiffs' attempt to discover purportedly confidential
financial information.
The Plaintiffs have placed the requested discovery into four
categories. Rather than proceeding with these categories, the
Court finds it more beneficial to proceed with four categories of
its own. Accordingly, Part I of the Court's opinion will discuss
what the Court will term "Incomplete Disputes." Part II will then
address Interrogatories Nos. 1-3 and 8-10 & Requests for Production
Nos. 1-3, 6-7, 10, and 12-15. Finally, Part III will address
Requests for Production Nos. 16-17.
Before it proceeds to these categories, however, the Court must
first address a preliminary matter. The Court already ruled on the
Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeals. It denied
the said Motion. Consequently, any argument proffered by PLS that
the Plaintiffs are not entitled to discovery because a stay is
merited is rejected. PLS' Response to Request for Production Nos.
4-5, 8-9, and 20-21, as well as PLS' Response to Interrogatory Nos.
4-7, and 11 are grounded solely in arguments that the case should
be stayed. Finding such arguments lacking, as dictated, the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to those Interrogatories and
Requests for Production is granted.
Having addressed the overarching issue, the Court now considers
each category of requested discovery independently. The Court
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Request for Production No.
11 because PLS' objections do not include objections as to the
class certification -- the only objection that the Court finds PLS
carried its burden on and thus merits review. The Court denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Requests for Production 18-19 and
22-24 because the Plaintiffs failed to challenge, or mention, PLS'
objections in its Motion when PLS objected specifically to requests
that were indeed overbroad.
The Court now considers the issues surrounding Interrogatories Nos.
1-3 and 8-10 as well as Requests for Production Nos. 1-3, 6-7, 10,
12-15. On a case-by-case basis, the court must balance the
defendant's need for detailed information against the burden on the
absent class members, who did not initiate the action and are not
actively participating in it. PLS' reliance on Southern Ave.
Partners LP v. Blasnik is accordingly misplaced. Because it finds
the information requested is relevant to the case, and PLS'
reliance on Blasnik is misplaced, the Court finds that the
remainder of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel -- specifically,
their Motion to Compel Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 8-10 as well as
Requests for Production Nos. 3, 6-7, 10, and 12-15 -- should be
granted.
Finally, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Requests for Production Nos. 16-17 with the qualification that PLS
Financial Services and PLS Lone Store of Texas need only produce a
statement of each of their net worths. The Court sees no reason
why PLS Financial Services and PLS Lone Store of Texas must
disclose a plethora of financial documentation when the Plaintiffs
are merely attempting to ascertain each Defendant's net worth.
Consequently, the Court finds that limiting production to a
statement of each Defendant's net worth" is appropriate. By
limiting production to a statement of each Defendant's net worth,
the Plaintiffs will receive the discovery they seek while PLS
Financial Services and PLS Lone Store of Texas will be protected
from having to disclose a variety of sensitive information that is
otherwise unnecessary.
Based on the foregoing, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel Discovery as to Interrogatories Nos. 3-11 and Requests for
Production Nos. 3-17 and 20-21. Production as to Requests for
Production Nos. 16-17 is narrowed in accordance with the Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Discovery as to Interrogatories Nos. 1-2 and Requests for
Production Nos. 1-2, 18-19, and 22-24 is denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Jan. 24, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/FA22p0 from
Leagle.com.
Lucinda Vine & Kristy Pond, Plaintiffs, represented by H. Mark
Burck -- mburck@hanszenlaporte.com -- Hanszen Laporte LLP, Daniel
R. Dutko -- dutko@hanszenlaporte.com -- Hanszen Laporte LLP, M.
Mitchell Moss, Moss Legal Group, PLLC & Priscilla M. Castillo --
pcas@scotthulse.com -- Moss Legal Group, PLLC.
PLS Financial Services, Inc. & PLS Loan Store of Texas, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Richard Andrew Bonner --
richard.bonner@kempsmith.com -- Kemp Smith LLP, J. Austen
Irrobali -- airrobali@tillotsonlaw.com -- Tillotson Law, Jeffrey
Mark Tillotson -- jtillotson@tillotsonlaw.com -- Tillotson Law,
Jonathan R. Patton -- patton@tillotsonlaw.com -- Tillotson Law,
Jose Abelardo Howard-Gonzalez -- abe.gonzalez@kempsmith.com --
Kemp Smith LLP, Mark N. Osborn -- mark.osborn@kempsmith.com --
Kemp Smith LLP & Shelly W. Rivas -- shelly.rivas@kempsmith.com --
Kemp Smith LLP.
POPE RESOURCES: Thompson Securities Suit Balks at Rayonier Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Thompson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. POPE RESOURCES, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, WILLIAM
R. BROWN, JOHN E. CONLIN, SANDY D. MCDADE, MARIA M. POPE, THOMAS M.
RINGO, RAYONIER INC., RAYONIER OPERATING COMPANY LLC, PACIFIC GP
MERGER SUB I, LLC, PACIFIC GP MERGER SUB II, LLC, PACIFIC LP MERGER
SUB III, LLC, POPE MGP, INC., and POPE EGP, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00432-UNA (D. Del., March 26, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed acquisition of the Company by
Rayonier, L.P.
On January 14, 2020, the Board of Directors of Pope Resources, A
Delaware Limited Partnership, caused the Partnership to enter into
an agreement and plan of merger with Rayonier, Inc., Rayonier
Operating Company LLC, Pacific GP Merger Sub I, LLC, Pacific GP
Merger Sub II, LLC, Pacific LP Merger Sub III, LLC, Pope MGP, Inc.,
and Pope EGP, Inc. ("MGP," and collectively, the "Merger Agreement
Parties"). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement: (i)
Merger Sub 3 will be merged with and into Pope Resources, with Pope
Resources continuing as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rayonier, L.P.
("Rayonier Operating Partnership"), a successor in interest to
Rayonier Opco; and (ii) Pope Resources' unitholders will receive
3.929 common shares of Rayonier, 3.929 units of Rayonier Operating
Partnership, or $125.00 in cash for each unit they own.
On March 17, 2020, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading. The Plaintiff asserts that the
Registration Statement omits material information regarding the
Partnership's and Rayonier's financial projections, and the
analyses performed by the Partnership's financial advisor in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, Centerview Partners, LLC;
and fails to disclose the timing and nature of the past services
Centerview provided to Pope Resources and its affiliates, and the
amount of compensation received by Centerview for providing such
services.
The omissions and false and misleading statements in the
Registration Statement are material in that a reasonable unitholder
will consider them important in deciding how to vote on the
Proposed Transaction. Because of the false and misleading
statements in the Registration Statement, the Plaintiff and the
Class are threatened with irreparable harm, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the owner of Pope Resources common units.
Pope Resources is engaged primarily in managing timber resources on
its own properties, as well as those owned by others.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
PORTABLE MUD SYSTEMS: Douglas Seeks OT Pay fr Oil Field Mechanics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Douglas, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Portable Mud Systems, Inc. Defendant, Case
No. 7:20-cv-00073 (W.D. Tex., March 20, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate employees at
time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours
worked pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and the Collective Members, who were employed as oil
field mechanics, were paid a salary without any allowance for
overtime pay.
Portable Mud Systems, Inc. is a Texas-based oilfield services
company specializing in solids control for land-based oil and gas
drilling operations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
The Law Office of Chris R. Miltenberger, PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092-4322
Telephone: (817) 416-5060
Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com
PORTABLE MUD SYSTEMS: Overbey Seeks OT Pay for Oil Field Mechanics
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Overbey, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Portable Mud Systems, Inc. Defendant, Case
No. 7:20-cv-00072 (W.D. Tex., March 19, 2020) is an action against
the Defendant for its failure to pay employees at time and one-half
their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked in
violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as oil field mechanic
from approximately February 2, 2018 to January 26, 2020.
Portable Mud Systems, Inc. is a Texas-based oilfield services
company specializing in solids control for land-based oil and gas
drilling operations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
The Law Office of Chris R. Miltenberger, PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092-4322
Telephone: 817-416-5060
Facsimile: 817-416-5062
Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com
PRESTO FRESH CAFE: Rodriguez Diaz et al. Allege Unfair Labor Acts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE RODRIGUEZ DIAZ, SALIN SOLIS, and ELEAZAR GONZALEZ
MORALES, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, -against- PRESTO FRESH CAFE CORP. d/b/a PRESTO FRESH
CAFE, PRESTO FRESH MEXICAN GRILL CORP. d/b/a PRESTO FRESH MEXICAN
GRILL, and EDWIN BENAVIDES, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02432
(S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2020) contends that the Defendants fail to pay
at the minimum hourly rate, for overtime premium, and for spread of
hours, as well as for illegally deducted wages pursuant to the New
York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Rodriguez Diaz also seeks pursuant to the New York City Human
Rights Law declaratory and injunctive relief and damages to redress
the injuries Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being
discriminated against and sexually harassed on the basis of her
gender and retaliated against after complaining about being
sexually harassed.
Rodriguez Diaz was employed by Defendants as a cashier at its
restaurant since on or about February 2019 to on or about January
2020.
Solis worked as a deliveryman and kitchen helper from on or about
January 2018 to on or about January 2019.
Gonzalez Morales worked as a deliveryman and kitchen helper from on
or about June 2018 to on or about May 2019.
Presto Fresh Cafe Corp., d/b/a Presto Fresh Cafe, is a New
York-based restaurant.
Presto Fresh Mexican Grill Corp., d/b/a Presto Fresh Mexican Grill,
is a New York-based restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Emiliano Perez, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF EMILIANO PEREZ
3728 75th Street, Suite 1D
Jackson Heights, NY 11372
Telephone: (718) 440-9214
– and -
Jesse Rose, Esq.
THE ROSE LAW GROUP
31-09 Newtown Avenue, Suite 309
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 989-1864
PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT: Branch Sues over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------------
JOHNNIE BRANCH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02677-CJC-MAA (C.D. Cal., March 23,
2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant called her cellular phone
number using an automated telephone dialing system with a
pre-recorded message requesting to return Defendant's call without
her prior written express consent.
Progressive Management Systems is a West Covina, California-based
collection agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
E-mail: yana@kazlg.com
ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 344-8667
Facsimile: (619) 344-8657
E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com
RETAIL RECOVERY: Twyman Suit Seeks Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as FAITH TWYMAN and JORGE
GALLINAT, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v.
RETAIL RECOVERY SERVICE OF NJ, INC.; RAYMOND MEISENBACHER & SONS,
ESQS., P.C.; RAYMOND F. MEISENBACHER, JR.; and THOMAS M.
MEISENBACHER, Case No. 2:16-cv-02910-SCM (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court, on a date and time to be determined by the
Court, for an order granting preliminary approval of the parties'
proposed settlement and related relief.
Retail Recovery is an New Jersey collection agency. Raymond
Meisenbacher is a law firm in Bridgewater, New Jersey.[CC]
Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Classes is
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack NJ 07601
Telephone: 201 273-7117
E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
Attorney for Retail Recovery Service of NJ, Inc. is:
Barry I. Seigel, Esq.
BARRY I. SEIGEL, ESQ.
333 Littleton Road, Suite 301
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
Attorney for Raymond F. Meisenbacher, Jr., Thomas M. Meisenbacher
and Raymond Meisenbacher & Sons, Esqs., P.C. is:
Aleksander Powietrzynski, Esq.
WINSTON & WINSTON, P.C.
750 Third Avenue, Suite 978
New York, NY 10017
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Queen Sues Over Trading Platform Outages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRUCE QUEEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC,
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02090 (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2020) says the
Defendants experienced total outages of its operating systems on
March 2, 2020, March 3, 2020, and March 9, 2020, preventing
customers from making securities trades through its website, app,
or call center and making customers unable to place trade orders.
According to the complaint, the outages occurred during the
then-biggest one-day point gain in Dow history, but also during the
advent of the recent stock market crash of March 2020.
Plaintiff and other Robinhood customers suffered financial losses
because they could not execute transactions through the Robinhood
trading platform during this time.
Robinhood Financial LLC is a California-based institutional
brokerage company.
Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Financial LLC headquartered in California.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an American financial services company
headquartered in Menlo Park, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
David K. Stein, Esq.
Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
kjg@classlawgroup.com
– and –
Scott Silver, Esq.
SILVER LAW GROUP
11780 W. Sample Road
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Telephone: (954) 755-4799
Facsimile: (954) 755-4684
Email: ssilver@silverlaw.com
ROSSOMELA INC: Ruiz Torres Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FREDERIX RUIZ TORRES individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -against- ROSSOMELA, INC. D/B/A ROSSOPOMODORO,
SIMO PIZZA LLC D/B/A SIMO PIZZA, SIMONE FALCO, individually, and
MIGUEL LOPEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02563
(S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2020) seeks damages to redress the injuries
the Plaintiff has suffered against the Defendants as a result of
being assaulted and battered, discriminated against, sexually
harassed, and subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis
of gender and/or perceived sexual orientation, and for the failure
of the Defendant to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants and was employed as a
dishwasher on or about July 2016. Plaintiff's role was changed to
food runner in approximately November 2016. As a food runner,
Plaintiff was responsible for communicating food orders to kitchen
staff and delivering food orders to customers' tables.
In the beginning of 2018, Plaintiff's work environment became
permeated with sexual harassment from Defendant Lopez, the Kitchen
Manager at the RossoPomodoro location.
Rossomela, Inc., d/b/a RossoPomodro, operates a pizza restaurant in
New York.
Simo Pizza LLC, d/b/a Simo Pizza, is a New York-based pizza
restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn R. Clark, Esq.
PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES
45 Broadway, Suite 620
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 248-7431
Facsimile: (212) 901-2107
Email: sclark@tpglaws.com
RTI SURGICAL HOLDINGS: Lowry Sues Over 14% Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA LOWRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RTI SURGICAL HOLDINGS, INC., CAMILLE I.
FARHAT, BRIAN K. HUTCHISON, JONATHON M. SINGER, ROBERT P. JORDHEIM,
and JOHANNES W. LOUW, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01939 (N.D.
Ill., March 23, 2020) is a class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of RTI from March 7, 2016 through March 16, 2020,
inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On March 16, 2020, after the market closed, RTI announced in a
press release that it would file a Form 12b-25 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission due to its inability to timely file its
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company
disclosed that the cause of the delay was that its Audit Committee
was investigating the Company's revenue recognition practices.
On this news, RTI's shares fell $0.40 per share or over 14.55% to
close at $2.35 per share on March 17, 2020, damaging investors.
During the Class Period, Defendants, individually and in concert,
directly or indirectly, disseminated or approved the false
statements, which they knew or deliberately disregarded were
misleading in that they contained misrepresentations and failed to
disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading.
The Defendants acted with scienter in that they knew that the
public documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name
of RTI were materially false and misleading; knew that such
statements or documents would be issued or disseminated to the
investing public; and knowingly and substantially participated, or
acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of such statements or
documents as primary violations of the securities laws.
RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. is a global surgical implant company
providing surgeons with safe biologic, metal and synthetic
implants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 229-8811
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
lcludwig@pomlaw.com
– and –
Phillip Kim
Laurence M. Rosen
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
SANTEE, SC: Hopkins Sues over OT Pay, Wrongful Termination
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, SEAN HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. TOWN OF SANTEE, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-01129-JMC (D.S.C., March 23, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40
per workweek and for wrongful termination in retaliation to his
complaints of wage and hour violations pursuant the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a law enforcement
officer with the Town of Santee Police Department from
approximately March 2016 of until July 2019.
Town of Santee is a governmental agency providing police protection
services through the Town of Santee Police Department. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
652 Rutledge Ave Ste A
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 588-5587
E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net
- and -
Jennifer Munter Stark, Esq.
210 Wingo Way #300
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 972-0004
Facsimile: (843) 972-0006
E-mail: jmunterstarklaw@gmail.com
SC EDISON COMPANY: Bohlke Sues over Derogatory Credit Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BOHLKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY; and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02697 (C.D. Cal.,
March 23, 2020) alleges Defendant have violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies
Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant has been willfully and
negligently providing and disseminating derogatory and inaccurate
statements and information relating to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's
credit history to various Credit Reporting Agencies which resulted
in a negative effect on Plaintiff's credit score.
The complaint asserts that because of Defendant's conduct,
Plaintiff has been damaged and continues to be damaged by getting
emotional distress and mental anguish, decreased credit score, and
out of pocket expenses associated with disputing the information.
Plaintiff seeks statutory, actual and punitive damages for himself
and class members, injunctive and declaratory relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
Southern California Edison Company provides energy production and
distribution services, and generates electricity through its
hydroelectric, coal, and nuclear power plants, as well as
distributes electricity. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Misclassifies OTR Truck Drivers, Warwick Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Warwick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC. and SCHNEIDER FINANCE, INC.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01995 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2020), arises out of
the Defendants' unlawful scheme of misclassifying their
over-the-road truck drivers as independent contractor
"owner-operators," rather than employees.
Under well-established law, the Defendants are the legal employers
of the Drivers, the Plaintiff contends. Yet, the Defendants have
labeled their Drivers as independent contractor "owner operators."
The distinction between an independent contractor and an employee
is critical because the State of Illinois provides certain
protection to employees, but not independent contractors, under the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
The Defendants are using an unlawful misclassification scheme to
pass their costs of doing business onto the Drivers, thereby,
evading critical protections they owe to the Drivers as their legal
employers, under the IWPCA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an over-the-road truck
driver driving throughout Illinois and nationwide.
The Defendants are freight and cargo companies providing long-haul
trucking services in Illinois and nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
Elena N. Liveris, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. MULDER
1603 Orrington Avenue, Suite 600
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone: (312) 263-0272
Email: mmmulder@mmulderlaw.com
eliveris@mmulderlaw.com
- and -
Joshua Konecky, Esq.
Leslie Joyner, Esq.
Nathan Piller, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: (415) 421-7100
Email: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com
npiller@schneiderwallace.com
SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal of Calif. Securities Action under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that plaintiffs in the class
action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California have commenced an appeal challenging the
dismissal of the case.
A federal securities class action alleging violation of the federal
securities laws was filed against Sempra Energy and certain of its
officers in July 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
In March 2018, the court dismissed the action with prejudice.
The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
SEMPRA ENERGY: June 24 Trial Set in Aliso Canyon Leak Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court has scheduled
an initial trial for June 24, 2020, for a small number of randomly
selected individual plaintiffs related to Aliso Canyon Leak.
On October 23, 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its
injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural
gas storage facility (the Leak), located in the northern part of
the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon
natural gas storage facility has been operated by SoCalGas since
1972. SS25 is one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells
at the storage facility. SoCalGas worked closely with several of
the world's leading experts to stop the Leak, and on February 18,
2016, the California Department of Conservation's Division of Oil,
Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) confirmed that the well was
permanently sealed. SoCalGas calculated that approximately 4.62 Bcf
of natural gas was released from the Aliso Canyon natural gas
storage facility as a result of the Leak.
As of February 21, 2020, 393 lawsuits, including approximately
36,000 plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas related to the
Leak, some of which have also named Sempra Energy. All these cases,
other than a matter brought by the Los Angeles County District
Attorney and the federal securities class action discussed below,
are coordinated before a single court in the LA Superior Court for
pretrial management.
In November 2017, in the coordinated proceeding, individuals and
business entities filed a Third Amended Consolidated Master Case
Complaint for Individual Actions, through which their separate
lawsuits will be managed for pretrial purposes.
The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for negligence,
negligence per se, private and public nuisance (continuing and
permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability,
negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress,
fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium, wrongful death and
violations of Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain causes
of action also naming Sempra Energy.
The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages
for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits, property
damage and diminution in property value, injunctive relief, costs
of future medical monitoring, civil penalties (including penalties
associated with Proposition 65 claims alleging violation of
requirements for warning about certain chemical exposures), and
attorneys' fees.
The court has scheduled an initial trial for June 24, 2020 for a
small number of randomly selected individual plaintiffs.
Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
SEMPRA ENERGY: Property & Business Class Suits Ongoing in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company and Southern
California Gas Company (SoCalGas) continue to defend two
consolidated class action suits in California.
In January 2017, two consolidated class action complaints were
filed against Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and Sempra
Energy, one on behalf of a putative class of persons and businesses
who own or lease real property within a five-mile radius of the
well (the Property Class Action), and a second on behalf of a
putative class of all persons and entities conducting business
within five miles of the facility (the Business Class Action).
Both complaints assert claims for strict liability for
ultra-hazardous activities, negligence and violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law.
The Property Class Action also asserts claims for negligence per
se, trespass, permanent and continuing public and private nuisance,
and inverse condemnation. The Business Class Action also asserts a
claim for negligent interference with prospective economic
advantage.
Both complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.
In May 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that the purely
economic damages alleged in the Business Class Action are not
recoverable, and in September 2019, in accordance with the ruling,
the LA Superior Court dismissed the strict liability, negligence
and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage
causes of action in the Business Class Action complaint.
Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
SEQUIUM ASSET: Cross Sues in M.D. Florida Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sequium Asset
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Brian S. Cross, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sequium Asset
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-00715-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla., March
26, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC, is an accounts receivable management
company with over 17 years of experience in the ARM Space.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
SHASTA BEVERAGES: Class Certification Bid in Garcia Suit Shelved
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Amber Garcia et al. v. Shasta
Beverages Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-07798-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order:
1. taking under submission Plaintiff's motion for class
certification;
2. vacating the hearing scheduled for March 23, 2020; and
3. denying the Defendant's request for telephonic appearance.
Shasta Beverages is a National Beverage Company.[CC]
SOBE USA: Menoscal Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON A. MENOSCAL and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. SOBE USA LLC, d/b/a OCEANS 10, a/k/a OCEAN'S TEN
and ANTHONY ARRIGHI, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-21176-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 17, 2020) alleges that the
Defendants fail to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half their
regular rate for every hour that they worked in excess of 40, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff was paid with checks and paystubs that did not show
the number of days and the real number of overtime hours worked. He
was paid for overtime hours at the correct rate, but not paid for
all his overtime hours as required by law. The complaint further
states that the Plaintiff had missing overtime hours every week.
Mr. Menoscal was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted
full-time restaurant employee approximately from December 04, 2016,
to January 31, 2020.
Sobe USA LLC, d/b/a Oceans 10, a/k/a Ocean's Ten, is a Miami Beach,
Florida-based restaurant and bar. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SPROUTS FARMERS: 4 Claimants in Phishing Suit to Start Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 29, 2019, that in the litigation related to
"Phishing" scams, a group of four individual claimants will proceed
with arbitration of their claims.
In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two in the federal
courts of California, one in the Superior Court of California and
one in the federal court in the District of Colorado, each on
behalf of a purported class of the Company's current and former
team members whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was
inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party that
perpetrated an email "phishing" scam against one of the Company's
team members.
The complaints alleged the Company failed to properly safeguard the
PII in accordance with applicable law. The complaints sought
damages on behalf of the purported class in unspecified amounts,
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.
On March 1, 2019, a number of individual plaintiffs filed
arbitration demands.
On May 15, 2019, certain other plaintiffs filed a second amended
class action complaint in the District of Arizona, alleging that
certain subclasses of team members are not subject to the Company's
arbitration agreement and attempted to pursue those team members'
claims in federal court.
In late August 2019, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the majority of these claims, which were funded in the
fourth quarter of 2019. Primary funding for the settlement came
from the Company's cyber insurance policy, and the settlement did
not have a material impact on the consolidated financial
statements. A small group of four (4) individual claimants will
proceed with arbitration of their claims.
Sprouts Farmers said, "The Company intends to defend the
arbitrations vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to
reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any potential liability
from, the arbitrations."
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides
fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its
stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods,
packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and
dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body
care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded
in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona.
ST LOGISTICS: Delivery Drivers Class Certified in Barricelli Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GIOVANNI BARRICELLI,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current
and former employees v. ST LOGISTICS, LLC, d/b/a SOLDIER DELIVERY,
a Wisconsin limited liability company, and TRAVIS SMITH,
individually, Case No. 3:19-cv-00136 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. has entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying conditional class consisting of
the following individuals, and authorizing issuance of
notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):
"any person who was employed by ST Logistics, LLC, in
Nashville, Tennessee, as a delivery driver delivering
packages to Amazon customers in and around Nashville,
Tennessee, within the preceding three years and who was
hired by ST Logistics, LLC, on or before January 14,
2019";
2. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification;
3. directing ST Logistics, LLC, (through counsel), within 15
business days from the date of this Order, to deliver to
Plaintiffs' counsel an Excel spreadsheet containing the
names and last known mailing addresses of all individuals
in the Conditional Class;
4. staying case in its entirety pending mediation; and
5. directing the parties to set a case management conference
if the parties do not reach an agreement on a settlement
of this matter as a result of mediation, within 14 days
following the mediation.
St Logistics is a logistics and supply chain company.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
- and -
Nina Parsley, Esq.
PONCE LAW
400 Professional Park Drive
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com
STURM RUGER: Palmer Class Suit Awaits Dismissal Order
-----------------------------------------------------
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the lawsuit by
David S. Palmer remains pending until an order of dismissal can be
obtained from the court.
The case styled, David S. Palmer, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated vs. Sturm, Ruger & Co., is a putative
class-action suit filed in Florida state court on behalf of Florida
consumers.
The suit alleges breach of warranty and deceptive trade practices
related to the sale of 10/22 Target Rifles. The Company has denied
all material allegations and the dispute between the parties has
been resolved. The matter remains pending until an order of
dismissal can be obtained from the court.
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and sells firearms under the Ruger name and
trademark in the United States. It operates in two segments,
Firearms and Castings. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. was founded in
1949 and is based in Southport, Connecticut.
STURM RUGER: Primus Group Has Yet to File Initial Appeal Brief
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled, Primus Group LLC v. Smith and Wesson, et al.,
the plaintiff has sought two extensions of the time to file its
initial brief regarding its appeal from the District Court's
dismissal of its amended complaint, according to Sturm, Ruger &
Company, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
Primus Group LLC v. Smith and Wesson, et al. is a putative class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on August 8, 2019.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants' lawful sale of modern
sporting rifles violates the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act and seeks a temporary restraining order ("TRO")
and permanent injunction.
On August 20, 2019, the court denied plaintiff's request for a
TRO.
On September 3, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
On September 16, 2019, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.
On October 9, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on October 15, 2019 and has
since sought two extensions of time to file its initial brief.
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and sells firearms under the Ruger name and
trademark in the United States. It operates in two segments,
Firearms and Castings. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. was founded in
1949 and is based in Southport, Connecticut.
SYNEOS HEALTH: Awaits Ruling on Show Cause Order in Murakami Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the case styled, Murakami v. Syneos Health, Inc. et al,
are awaiting a ruling on an Order to Show Cause, according to
Syneos Health, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
On March 1, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders who purchased the Company's common
stock during the period between May 10, 2017 and February 27, 2019.
The action, captioned Murakami v. Syneos Health, Inc. et al, No.
19-7377 (D.N.J.), names the Company and certain of its executive
officers as defendants and alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or
misleading statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. The plaintiffs seek awards of compensatory damages,
among other relief, and their costs and attorneys' and experts'
fees.
On March 28, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs in the Vaitkuviene action filed
a motion to intervene and to transfer this action to the Eastern
District of North Carolina, and the Company filed the Company's
response on April 22, 2019.
On April 30, 2019, a shareholder filed a motion seeking to be
appointed lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead
counsel.
On October 16, 2019, the Court ordered that Plaintiff, by November
8, 2019, file proof of service of the Complaint in Compliance with
Rule 4, or otherwise show cause why the action should not be
dismissed for failure to properly serve Defendants (the "Order to
Show Cause"). The Court further ordered that the action is stayed
and that both motions are administratively terminated pending the
Court's resolution of the Order to Show Cause.
Plaintiff filed a response to the Order to Show Cause on November
8, 2019, and the Company and the other defendants filed a response
on November 20, 2019. The parties are awaiting a ruling on the
Order to Show Cause.
The Company said, "We and the other defendants deny the allegations
in the complaint and intend to defend vigorously against these
claims."
Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through
two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The
company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos
Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.
SYNEOS HEALTH: Vaitkuviene Class Action Remain Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action suit entitled, Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc.,
et al., remains stayed, according to Syneos Health, Inc.'s Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
On December 1, 2017, the first of two virtually identical actions
alleging federal securities law claims was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers on behalf of a putative class
of its shareholders.
The first action, captioned Bermudez v. INC Research, Inc., et al,
No. 17-09457 (S.D.N.Y.) in the Southern District of New York, names
as defendants the Company, Michael Bell, Alistair MacDonald,
Michael Gilbertini, and Gregory S. Rush (the "Bermudez action"),
and the second action, Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al,
No. 18-0029 (E.D.N.C.) in the Eastern District of North Carolina,
filed on January 25, 2018 (the "Vaitkuviene action"), names as
defendants the Company, Alistair MacDonald, and Gregory S. Rush
(the "Initial Defendants"). Both complaints allege similar claims
under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between May 10, 2017 and November 8, 2017
and November 9, 2017.
The complaints allege that the Company published inaccurate or
incomplete information regarding, among other things, the financial
performance and business outlook for inVentiv's business prior to
the Merger and with respect to the combined company following the
Merger.
On January 30, 2018, two alleged shareholders separately filed
motions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approving the
selection of lead counsel.
On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff Bermudez filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the Bermudez action, without prejudice, and as to all
defendants.
On May 29, 2018, the Court in the Vaitkuviene action appointed the
San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund and El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs and, on June 7, 2018,
the Court entered a schedule providing for, among other things,
Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 23, 2018
(later extended to July 30, 2018). Lead Plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint on July 30, 2018, which also includes a claim
against the Initial Defendants, as well as each member of the board
of directors at the time of the INC Research - inVentiv Health
merger vote in July 2017 (the "Defendants"), contending that the
inVentiv merger proxy was misleading under Section 14(a) of the
Act. Lead Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders (i)
declaring that the lawsuit is a proper class action and (ii)
awarding compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
including interest thereon, and reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in this action, including attorneys' fees and expert fees,
to Lead Plaintiffs and other class members. Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on September 20,
2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to such
motion on November 21, 2018, and Defendants filed a Reply to such
response on December 5, 2018.
On May 23, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Filings in
Related Case regarding the New Jersey shareholder action filed on
March 1, 2019, and Defendants filed their response on May 31,
2019.
On September 26, 2019, the Court ordered, among other things, that
this action is stayed in light of the litigation filed on March 1,
2019 and pending before the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
The Company said, "We and the other defendants deny the allegations
in these complaints and intend to defend vigorously against these
claims."
Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through
two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The
company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos
Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.
TASCA DE ESPANA: Rojas Sues Over Overtime Pay, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR M. ROJAS and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. TASCA DE ESPANA LLC, and SHAHRUKH D. SARIARI,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-21285-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
March 25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant to recover
money damages for retaliation and unpaid half-time overtime wages
under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other current and
former employees similarly situated worked in excess of 40 hours
during one or more weeks on or after March 25, 2019 without being
properly compensated.
The Plaintiff was hired as a cook and to perform general restaurant
work from approximately February 15, 2018, to November 11, 2019, or
90 weeks.
Tasca de Espana LLC is a Miami, Florida-based Spanish restaurant.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
TAYLOR MCKENSIE: Batch Sues over Unpaid OT Pay, Misclassification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BATCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAYLOR MCKENSIE DEVELOPERS, LLC and TODD
LONG, Defendants, Case No. CACE-20-005069 (Fla. 17th Cir., March
20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
misclassifying Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated
employees as independent contractors and refusing to compensate
them at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a construction worker
for approximately three years until the termination of his
employment on December 30, 2019.
Taylor McKensie Developers, LLC is a Florida-based limited
liability company that engages in real estate development. It is
owned by Todd Long. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Streit, Esq.
SKS LEGAL GROUP P.A.
101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 637-3713
E-mail: rstreit@skslegalgroup.com
TD BANK: Manship Says Fees for Billing Statement Requests Illegal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case MAYA MANSHIP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00329-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., March 23, 2020) arises out of
TD Bank's policy and practice of charging its New York customers
including the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated a fee to
receive their account billing statements in paper form via United
States mail.
According to the complaint, TD Bank's fee charged to consumers for
receiving their Account Statements in paper form violates New York
General Business Law, and each such fee charge constitutes a
separate and independent deceptive act and practice that violates
such law.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, seeks to enjoin
TD Bank's unlawful conduct, and seeks to recover actual damages at
least equal to all Paper Statement Fees paid by Plaintiff and all
members of the Class or 50 dollars per each violation, whichever is
greater.
TD Bank, N.A. is a federally chartered national banking association
with its principal place of business in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: scarson@bm.net
pmadden@bm.net
– and –
Joseph Hashmall, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Facsimile: (6120 584-4470
Email: jhashmall@bm.net
TELEFONICA BRASIL: Appeal in SISTEL Class Action Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Telefonica Brasil S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that an appeal from a decision in the class
action by SISTEL Participants' Association (ASTEL) in the state of
Sao Paulo remains pending.
A class action filed by SISTEL Participants' Association (ASTEL) in
the state of Sao Paulo, in which SISTEL associates question the
changes made in the HealthCare Plan for Retired Employees (PAMA) of
the Association and seek the reestablishment of the status quo.
This proceeding is in the appeal phase under review by the superior
court. The amount cannot be estimated in that it entails a return
to the prior conditions.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Telefonica Brasil S.A. provides mobile and fixed telecommunications
services to residential and corporate customers in Brazil. The
company was incorporated in 1998 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo,
Brazil. Telefonica Brasil S.A. is a subsidiary of SP
Telecomunicacoes Participacoes Ltda.
TELEFONICA BRASIL: FENAPAS Class Suit Referred to Federal Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Telefonica Brasil S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the class action of National Federation of
Associations of Retirees and Pensioners and Participants in Pension
Funds in Telecom (FENAPAS) against the Company related to a pension
benefit plan spin-off has been referred to the Federal Courts for
re-trial.
Two associations -- Sistel Participants Association in Sao Paulo
(ASTEL) and National Federation of Associations of Retirees and
Pensioners and Participants in Pension Funds in Telecom (FENAPAS)
-- filed distinct class actions, with the same object, against the
Company, seeking the annulment of the spin-off of the PBS pension
benefit plan, that occurred in 2000, and created the specific
TELESP–PBS pension benefit plan, and corresponding allocation of
resources resulted from the technical surplus and fiscal
contingencies existing at that time.
With respect to the class action filed by ASTEL, the action was
ruled in favor of the Company by the lower court. ASTEL filed an
appeal. Then, ASTEL withdrew the appeal and the favorable decision
was maintained, concluding these proceedings (no appeals are
outstanding).
The Conpany said, "With respect to the lawsuit filed by FENAPAS,
the success rate of the Company is deemed possible based on the
opinion of our legal advisors. The Company disclosed that the
amount involved cannot yet be determined until an expert appraisal
report is conducted since it includes the spin-off portion of
Sistel related to the telecommunication operators from the former
"Telebras System". The lower court ruled against the Company.
Subsequently, the lack of jurisdiction of the State Court was
acknowledged and the case was referred to the Federal Courts for
re-trial."
Telefonica Brasil S.A. provides mobile and fixed telecommunications
services to residential and corporate customers in Brazil. The
company was incorporated in 1998 and is headquartered in Sao Paulo,
Brazil. Telefonica Brasil S.A. is a subsidiary of SP
Telecomunicacoes Participacoes Ltda.
TEVERBAUGH EQUIPMENT: Bassman Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BASSMAN, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TEVERBAUGH EQUIPMENT, INC. and WILLIAM TEVERBAUGH,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00109-TMR (S.D. Ohio, March 19, 2020)
alleges Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and Ohio
Constitution.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a driver beginning in or
around 2013 and was paid on an hourly basis throughout his
employment with Defendants.
Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- He was only paid by Defendants for the time recorded on the
workday ticket;
-- Defendants did not compensate him for any time spent on
pre-trip or post-trip work or driving to and from the contractors'
worksites;
-- Defendants did not compensate him for the work he performed
at least one-and-one-half hours of work per day; and
-- Defendants had a written policy of not paying Plaintiff and
the other drivers for any work they performed prior to the time
they arrived on the contractors' job site and after they left the
site.
William Teverbaugh is the owner of Teverbaugh Equipment, Inc.
Teverbaugh Equipment, Inc. is a carrier truck company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON LAW, LLC
9200 Montgomery Road, Suite 11A
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Tel: 513-834-8254
Fax: 513-834-8253
Emails: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: April 27 Trial Set for Guardrail Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has been scheduled for April 27, 2020, in the class
action suit initiated by Jackson County, Missouri, against Trinity
Industries, Inc., related to the Company's guardrail end-terminal
system ET Plus, according to Trinity Industries, Inc.'s Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 5, 2015,
titled Jackson County, Missouri, individually and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and
Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1516-CV23684 (Circuit Court
of Jackson County, Missouri). The case is being brought by
plaintiff for and on behalf of itself and all Missouri counties
with a population of 10,000 or more persons, including the City of
St. Louis, and the State of Missouri's transportation authority.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway Products
did not disclose design changes to the ET Plus and these allegedly
undisclosed design changes made the ET Plus allegedly defective,
unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff alleges product
liability negligence, product liability strict liability, and
negligently supplying dangerous instrumentality for supplier's
business purposes.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs, and in the alternative plaintiff seeks a declaratory
judgment that the ET Plus is defective, the Company's conduct was
unlawful, and class-wide costs and expenses associated with
removing and replacing the ET Plus throughout Missouri.
On December 6, 2017, the Court granted plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, certifying a class of Missouri counties with
populations of 10,000 or more persons, including the City of St.
Louis and the State of Missouri's transportation authority that
have or had ET Plus guardrail end terminals with 4-inch wide guide
channels installed on roadways they own or maintain.
A trial date has been scheduled in this case for April 27, 2020.
Trinity Industries, Inc. provides rail transportation products and
services in North America. It operates through three segments:
Railcar Leasing and Management Services Group, Rail Products Group,
and All Other. Trinity Industries, Inc. was founded in 1933 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
TRUSTMARK CORP: Appeal to Intervene in Stanford Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal by certain individual investors and entities from their
court-dismissed motion to intervene in a class action lawsuit
against Trustmark National Bank (TNB) related to the collapse of
the Stanford Financial Group remains pending, according to
Trustmark Corporation's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019.
On August 23, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain,
Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis
Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano (collectively, Class
Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, naming TNB and four other financial institutions and one
individual, each of which are unaffiliated with Trustmark, as
defendants. The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent
transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and
other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled by
R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group) and
(ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one
or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme. Class Plaintiffs
have demanded a jury trial. Class Plaintiffs did not quantify
damages.
In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.
In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit.
In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of
an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to represent the
interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances,
to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors.
In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action.
In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a
magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial
issues.
In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to intervene,
and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one of the other
defendant financial institutions.
In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint that
asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial
institutions. The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent
transfers in the amount of the fees each of the defendants
allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the profits each
of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group
deposits, and other monies each of the defendants allegedly
received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable
to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants with the Stanford
Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and
conversion on the asserted grounds that the defendants knew or
should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an
illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The
OSIC did not quantify damages.
In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims.
In March 2015, the court entered an order authorizing the parties
to conduct discovery regarding class certification, staying all
other discovery and setting a deadline for the parties to complete
briefing on class certification issues.
In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the
OSIC's claims. The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs'
fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's
claims. The court denied the motions by TNB and the other
financial institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive
fraudulent transfer claims.
On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i)
aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in
breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and participating
in conversion and (v) conspiracy.
On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court's prior denial to
dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against
TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in the
action.
On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other
financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also denied
the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to
reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's
constructive fraudulent transfer claims.
On August 24, 2016, TNB filed its answer to the SAC.
On October 20, 2017, the OSIC filed a motion seeking an order
lifting the discovery stay and establishing a trial schedule.
On November 4, 2016, the OSIC filed a First Amended Intervenor
Complaint, which added claims for (i) aiding, abetting or
participation in violations of the Texas Securities Act and (ii)
aiding, abetting or participation in the breach of fiduciary duty.
On November 7, 2017, the court denied the Class Plaintiffs' motion
seeking class certification and designation of class
representatives and counsel, finding that common issues of fact did
not predominate. The court granted the OSIC's motion to lift the
discovery stay that it had previously ordered.
On May 3, 2019, individual investors and entities filed motions to
intervene in the action.
On September 18, 2019, the court denied the motions to intervene.
On October 14, 2019, certain of the proposed intervenors filed a
notice of appeal.
Trustmark Corporation operates as the bank holding company for
Trustmark National Bank that provides banking and other financial
solutions to individuals and corporate institutions in the United
States. Trustmark Corporation was founded in 1889 and is
headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi.
UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Hughes Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the court-granted motion for judgment
in the case styled, Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and
United Parcel Service, Inc., remains pending, according to United
Parcel Service, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company said, "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed
in state and federal courts containing various class action
allegations under state wage-and-hour laws. At this time, we do
not believe that any loss associated with any matter would have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity. One of these matters, Hughes v. UPS
Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc. had
previously been certified as a class action in Kentucky state
court. In the second quarter of 2019, the court granted our motion
for judgment on the pleadings related to the wage-and-hour claims.
The plaintiffs have appealed this decision."
United Parcel Service, Inc. provides letter and package delivery,
specialized transportation, logistics, and financial services. It
operates through three segments: U.S. Domestic Package,
International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. United Parcel
Service, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.
VALLEY NATIONAL: Urena Sues Over Collection of Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Haydee Urena, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANK and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
2:20-cv-03305-WJM-MF (D.N.J., March 26, 2020), seeks relief due to
Valley National's overdraft policies, which include its practices
of charging and collecting overdraft fees on transactions that are
not overdraft transactions under the contract; the manner and
extent of and collecting overdraft fees; and the unconscionable
collection of fees.
According to the complaint, Valley National wrongfully charged the
Plaintiff, and the members of the class, overdraft fees and
Non-Sufficient Funds fees. In imposing these improper fees, Valley
National also uses such terms as "Checks returned for uncollected
funds" fees and "ACH Return Fee" without ever defining or
explaining these terms. Further, for almost the entire country
Valley National Bank does not list any authority on its Fee
Schedule for imposing a Non-Sufficient Funds ("NSF") fee "ACH
Return" whatsoever, yet alone for imposing such a fee more than
once for the same item. The practice of determining whether to
collect a fee for NSF transactions also does not comply with the
contract.
The charging for such overdraft and NSF fees also violates federal
law, in that Valley National has failed to follow basic
prerequisites in its overdraft fee practices as required by
Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which includes,
inter alia, (1) providing a separate overdraft fee contract that
describes the actual overdraft and non-sufficient funds practice
implemented by Valley National, that may be rejected by the
customer, and only collecting fees in the manner described by that
contract; and, (2) to opt-in customers into this overdraft fee
contract consistent with the terms of Regulation E, says the
complaint. Regulation E prohibits Valley National from assessing
overdraft fees for automated teller machine (ATM) and non-recurring
debit card transactions, if it does not meet the Regulation E
prerequisites, but Valley National did charge and continues to
charge overdraft fees without meeting these Regulation E
prerequisites.
Plaintiff Haydee Urena is a resident of Paterson, New Jersey, and
was a customer of Valley National Bank.
Valley National offers its consumers and business banking customers
a checking account.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
David C. Wright, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Phone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
Email: mmv@mccunewright.com
rdm@mccunewright.com
dcw@mccunewright.com
- and -
Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557 1275
Email: esk@mccunewright.com
- and -
Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
231 N. Main Street, Suite 20
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone: (618) 307-6116
Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
Email: ejk@mccunewright.com
- and -
Taras Kick, Esq.
THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
815 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Phone: (310) 395-2988
Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
Email: Taras@Kicklawfirm.com
VIACOMCBS INC: Bucks County Fund Files Merger-Related Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. is facing a putative derivative and class action
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
initiated by the Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund related to
the Company's 2019 Merger Agreement, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
On December 4, 2019, Viacom Inc. ("Viacom") merged with and into
CBS Corporation ("CBS"), with CBS continuing as the surviving
company (the "Merger"), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of August 13, 2019, as amended on October 16, 2019 (the
"Merger Agreement").
On September 27, 2019, Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund (the
"Bucks County Fund"), a purported holder of CBS Class B Common
Stock, served the Company with a demand for inspection of books and
records pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 220 in connection with the
Merger (the "Demand").
On October 10, 2019, the Company offered to produce certain
categories of documents properly within the scope of a books and
records demand under Section 220. The Bucks County Fund rejected
the Company's offer and filed litigation in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware on October 15, 2019, seeking to compel
production of all documents requested in the Demand (the "Section
220 Complaint"). A trial on the Section 220 Complaint took place
on November 22, 2019, and the Court ordered limited additional
production on November 25, 2019.
On December 2, 2019, the Company certified that it had completed
production of all relevant documents.
On February 20, 2020, the Bucks County Fund filed a putative
derivative and class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware against Shari Redstone, NAI, Sumner M.
Redstone National Amusements Trust ("SMR Trust"), the CBS board of
directors (comprised of Candace K. Beinecke, Barbara M. Byrne, Gary
L. Countryman, Brian Goldner, Linda M. Griego, Robert N. Klieger,
Martha L. Minow, Susan Schuman, Frederick O. Terrell and Strauss
Zelnick), former CBS President and Acting Chief Executive Officer
Joseph Ianniello and ViacomCBS Inc. The complaint alleges breaches
of fiduciary duties to CBS stockholders and waste in connection
with the negotiation and approval of the Merger Agreement. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses as well as
other relief.
The Company said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and
we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are currently
unable to determine a range of potential liability, if any.
Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our
consolidated financial statements."
ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS
Inc. was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.
VIACOMCBS INC: CalPERS Named as Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has named the
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) as lead
plaintiff in the case styled, In re Viacom Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, according to ViacomCBS Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
On January 23, 2020, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
consolidated four putative class action suits filed by purported
Viacom stockholders against NAI, NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC,
Shari E. Redstone, the members of the Viacom special transaction
committee of the Viacom board of directors (comprised of Thomas J.
May, Judith A. McHale, Ronald L. Nelson and Nicole Seligman) and
the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer and director,
Robert M. Bakish, in In re Viacom Inc. Stockholders Litigation.
The four actions allege breaches of fiduciary duties to Viacom
stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the
Merger Agreement, and seek unspecified damages, costs and
expenses.
On February 6, 2020, the Court appointed the California Public
Employees' Retirement System as the lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action.
The Company said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and
we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are currently
unable to determine a range of potential liability, if any.
Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our
consolidated financial statements."
ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and
experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four
segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local
Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and
changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS
Inc. was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York.
WARNER BROS: O'Connor Seeks Overtime Pay for Animators
-------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL O'CONNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WARNER BROS. ANIMATION INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20BBCV00239 (Cal. Sup. Ct., March 23, 2020) is a representative
action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 of
California Labor Code Section 2698.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant through 2018 as a non-exempt
employee animator whose job duties primarily involved animating
storyboards for projects and media productions for Defendants.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to:
-- pay premium compensation for all overtime hours worked;
-- pay minimum wage for all hours worked;
-- provide accurate and itemized wage statements; and
-- provide timely payment of wages to Plaintiffs when due and
upon termination and resignation.
Warner Bros. Animation Inc. is a Delaware Corporation whope primary
business is entertainment and media services and products such as
animated and live action television shows, movies, and other media
throughout the U.S. and globally. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian F. Van Vleck, Esq.
Daniel J. Turner, Esq.
Stuart H. Kluft, Esq.
VAN VLECK & TUNRER, LLP
5757 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 535
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Tel: (323)920-0259
Fax: (323)920-0249
Emails: skluft@vvlawgroup.com
WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Appeal in Smallen Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal in the case styled, Lawrence Henry Smallen
and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust et al. v. The Western
Union Company et al., remains pending, according to The Western
Union Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
On February 22, 2017, the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former
executive officer of the Company were named as defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits, both of which asserted claims
under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange
Commission rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
On May 3, 2017, the two cases were consolidated by the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado under the
caption Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable
Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:17-cv-00474-KLM (D. Colo.).
On September 6, 2017, the Court appointed Lawrence Henry Smallen
and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust as the lead
plaintiff.
On November 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint ("Amended Complaint") that, among other things, added two
other former executive officers as defendants, one of whom
subsequently was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The
Amended Complaint asserts claims under section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 and
section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that, during the
purported class period of February 24, 2012, through May 2, 2017,
the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose purported adverse material facts regarding, among other
things, the Company's compliance with AML and anti-fraud
regulations, the status and likely outcome of certain governmental
investigations targeting the Company, the reasons behind the
Company's decisions to make certain regulatory enhancements, and
the Company's premium pricing.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January
16, 2018, and on March 27, 2019, the Court dismissed the action in
its entirety with prejudice and entered final judgment in the
defendants' favor on March 28, 2019.
On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
On June 24, 2019, plaintiffs filed their opening brief on appeal
and oral argument was held on January 22, 2020. Plaintiffs did not
appeal the dismissal of one former executive officer and only
appealed the district court's conclusion that the remaining
defendants did not make statements concerning the Company's
compliance programs with the requisite intent.
The Company said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and
the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in
this matter."
The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.
WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit in Evidentiary Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit in Argentina against Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA"), is still in evidentiary stage,
according to The Western Union Company's Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA"). The lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that WUFSA's fees for money transfers sent from
Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA does not provide consumers
with adequate information about foreign exchange rates.
The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring
WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign
exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from
Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a
monetary value of the claim or a time period.
In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally
admissible as a class action. The notice of claim was served on
WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the
claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and
standing grounds.
In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later
in the proceedings. The process for notifying potential class
members has been completed and the case is currently in the
evidentiary stage.
Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend
itself vigorously."
The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.
WESTERN UNION: Frazier Class Suit Still Stayed Pending Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case entitled, Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et
al., remains stayed pending arbitration, according to The Western
Union Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 2020, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
On April 26, 2018, the Company, its WUFSI subsidiary, its President
and Chief Executive Officer, and various "Doe Defendants"
(purportedly including Western Union officers, directors, and
agents) were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit asserting claims for alleged violations of civil Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Colorado Organized
Crime Act, civil theft, negligence, unjust enrichment, and
conversion under the caption Frazier et al. v. The Western Union
Company et al., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-00998-KLM (D. Colo.).
The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period of
January 1, 2004 to the present, and based largely on the admissions
and allegations relating to the Deferred Prosecution Agreement
(DPA), the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Consent
Order, and the New York State Department of Financial Services
(NYDFS) Consent Order, the defendants engaged in a scheme to
defraud customers through Western Union's money transfer system.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 17, 2018. The
amended complaint is similar to the original complaint, although it
adds additional named plaintiffs and additional counts, including
claims on behalf of putative California, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, and New Jersey subclasses for alleged violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
On August 28, 2018, the Company and the other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of individual arbitrations with the named
plaintiffs, which defendants contend are contractually required.
On March 27, 2019, the Court granted that motion and stayed the
action pending individual arbitrations with the named plaintiffs.
To date, no such individual arbitration requests have been filed.
Western Union said, "Due to the stage of the matter, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and
the other defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this
matter."
The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.
WHITE GLOVE COMMUNITY: Underpays Home Health Aides, Phipps Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BLANCA PHIPPS, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE GLOVE COMMUNITY CARE INC.,
MOSHE Y. STARESHEFSKY, MEIR LESKOWITZ, and JOHN DOES #1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 506911-2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 19, 2020) is
a putative class action complaint brought against Defendants for
their alleged violations of New York Labor Law, Wage Parity Act,
and New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a home health aide/maid
from about November 1, 2013 until March 16, 2016, worked more than
40 hours per week, and often worked 24-hour shifts for Defendants
during her employment.
Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- He was only paid approximately 13 hours of her 24-hour
shifts;
-- Because Defendants' clients were often elderly, he did not
get an opportunity during 24-hour shifts to sleep for eight hours
or 5 hours without any interruption;
-- He did not get a one-hour break for each of three meals per
day during her 24-hour shifts;
-- He did not receive the "spread of hours" premium of one
additional hours at the minimum wage rate.
-- He did not receive minimum wages under the Wage Parity Act
for all hours worked; and
-- Defendants never provided or offered him any health
insurance.
Moshe Y. Stareshefsky is the Chief Executive Officer of the
Corporate Defendant and Meir Leskowitz is the President. Both
participated in the day-to-day operations of the company.
White Glove Community Care Inc. is a home care service agency.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Coudert Rand, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212)286-1425
Fax: (646)688-3078
Email: wcrand@wcrand.com
WILSON COMPANY: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Boynton Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Boynton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wilson Company and Richard Bills, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-00246 (W.D. Tex., February 28, 2020), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure
to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Wilson owns and operates stores which sell pneumatic and hydraulic
equipment and services where Boynton worked as a store manager from
April 2019 to February 2020. He claims that his overtime pay failed
to include nondiscretionary bonuses in the computation. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
Post Office Box 39
Russellville, AR 72811
Tel: (479) 880-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com
ZOETIS INC: Knapp Sues over Excede Drug's Side Effects to Horses
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY KNAPP, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, PLAINTIFF, v. ZOETIS INC, DEFENDANT, Case No.
3:20-cv-00191-MHL (Ed. Va., March 23, 2020) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf and herself and all other
similarly situated, seeking recovery against Zoetis relating to its
equine medical product Excede, for negligence, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, and failure to warn.
The Plaintiff owns a seven-year old Hanoverian gelding horse known
as Boomer. The horse was brought into the barn by the stable staff
at Linmoorland after overnight turnout on or about the morning of
August 13, 2016. The staff noticed that all four of Boomer's legs
were swollen; however, no cuts, abrasions, or scratches were
noticed. The veterinarian administered an injection of Excede to
Boomer. Within an hour, Boomer began to show signs of extreme pain,
including abnormal vocalization, abnormal sweating, spinning in his
stall, striking out, buckling of the hind end and inability to walk
normally, stretching and turning his neck repeatedly, and biting at
the air with his teeth bared. The treating veterinarian at Blue
Ridge diagnosed Boomer with a reaction to the Excede injection, and
he ruled out colic as a source of Boomer's symptoms. As a result of
the permanent lameness and physical damage caused by the Excede
injection, Boomer can no longer be ridden or used as a show horse.
Despite knowledge of the numerous adverse reactions suffered by
horses that were administered Excede, Zoetis has refused to revise
Excede's warning label and prescribing information to reflect the
significant negative post-approval experience. Consequently, the
majority of would be consumers and prescribing veterinarians are
left with no way of knowing of the considerable risk associated
with the administration of Excede.
Zoetis Inc. is a global animal health company headquartered in
Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamara L. Tucker, Esq.
Tucker Law Firm, PLC
690 Berkmar Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Telephone & facsimile: 833-388-2537
Email: tamara.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com
– and -
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Butler Royals, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Ste 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
Email: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel's Appeal in Oklahoma Case Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation's appeal from a judgment entered on a
jury verdict in an asbestos case in the state court in Oklahoma
against a party that was indemnified by the Company and another
unrelated defendant remains pending, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "On June 14, 2019, judgment was entered on a
jury verdict in an asbestos case in state court in Oklahoma against
a party that was indemnified by us and another unrelated defendant.
The judgment amount was US$8.1 against both defendants jointly and
severally. We are appealing that judgment and intend to contest
the matter vigorously, which may include asserting contribution
claims against the other defendant. We continue to vigorously
defend all asbestos claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/hEgvs3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Units Remain Defendants in Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Corporation said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that some of its subsidiaries are defendants, as
premises owners, in active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons
alleging injury as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos at
various facilities.
The Company states, "Some of our subsidiaries as premises owners
are defendants in active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons
alleging injury as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos at
various facilities. A former affiliate of a subsidiary has been
named, along with a large common group of industrial companies, in
a pattern complaint where our involvement is not evident. Since
1999, several thousand such complaints have been filed. To date,
the former affiliate has been dismissed from almost every case that
was actually placed in line for trial. Our subsidiaries and
acquired companies all have had numerous insurance policies over
the years that provide coverage for asbestos based claims. Many of
these policies provide layers of coverage for varying periods of
time and for varying locations. We have significant insurance
coverage and believe that our reserves are adequate for known
asbestos exposure related liabilities. The costs of defense and
settlement have not been and are not expected to be material to the
results of operations, cash flows, and financial position of Alcoa
Corporation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/PiOfCZ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Had $43.8MM A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. has net loss reserves of
US$43.8 million for asbestos and environmental matters for its
Run-Off Lines at December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
Within the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company has incurred
losses (net) of US$8.3 million and paid losses (net) of US$10.7
million for asbestos and environmental matters.
The Company states, "Losses and loss adjustment expenses for the
year ended December 31, 2019 included US$12.0 million of net
unfavorable loss reserve development on prior accident years, of
which US$7.5 million was in asbestos and environmental lines and
US$6.3 million in other run-off lines, partially offset by US$1.8
million of net favorable loss reserves development on prior
accident years in risk management."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/lijU0R
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 6,480 Claims Still Pending at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that there are 6,480 unresolved asbestos claims
related to the Bendix legacy Honeywell business at December 31,
2019.
The Company also reported that in the year ended December 31, 2019,
there were 2,659 new claims filed and 2,388 claims resolved.
As previously reported, Garrett Motion Inc. became an independent
publicly-traded company on October 1, 2018 through a pro rata
distribution by Honeywell International Inc. of 100% of the
then-outstanding shares of Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the
"Spin-Off").
The Company states, "For the periods prior to the Spin-Off, these
Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements reflect an estimated
liability for resolution of pending and future asbestos-related and
environmental liabilities primarily related to the Bendix legacy
Honeywell business, calculated as if we were responsible for 100%
of the Bendix asbestos-liability payments. However, this
recognition model differs from the recognition model applied
subsequent to the Spin-Off. In periods subsequent to the Spin-Off,
the accounting for the majority of our asbestos-related liability
payments and accounts payable reflect the terms of the
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement with Honeywell entered
into on September 12, 2018, under which we are required to make
payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to 90% of Honeywell's
asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable, primarily
related to the Bendix business in the United States, as well as
certain environmental-related liability payments and accounts
payable and non-United States asbestos-related liability payments
and accounts payable, in each case related to legacy elements of
the Business, including the legal costs of defending and resolving
such liabilities, less 90% of Honeywell's net insurance receipts
and, as may be applicable, certain other recoveries associated with
such liabilities. The Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement
provides that the agreement will terminate upon the earlier of (x)
December 31, 2048 or (y) December 31st of the third consecutive
year during which certain amounts owed to Honeywell during each
such year were less than US$25 million as converted into Euros in
accordance with the terms of the agreement."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/QUx8Bd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Had 209 Cases Pending at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp. is defending itself against a total of 209
asbestos-related cases pending as of December 31, 2019, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002
began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a
large number of industrial companies including, in particular,
those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management's
opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and
speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other
defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and
engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including
death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more
recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.
The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the
Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have
been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of
exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases, where evidence has
been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure
levels are low and the Company's position has been that its
products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company
has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases.
Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through December 31, 2019
for cases involving asbestos-related claims were US$3.0 million
which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses; US$2.8 million have been paid by the Company's insurers.
The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was
approximately US$34,000.
"Based upon the most recent information available to the Company
regarding such claims, there were a total of 209 cases pending
against the Company as of December 31, 2019 (with Illinois, New
York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of
cases), as compared with 208 cases that were pending as of December
31, 2018. During 2019, 68 new cases were filed against the
Company, and the Company was dismissed from 59 cases and settled 8
cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the
early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on
schedules leading to or are scheduled for trial. The Company
believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases
currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable
future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of
cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control
over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor
as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to
coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the
pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the
Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/3ddzML
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chubb Ltd. Had $1.5BB Reserve at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------
Chubb Limited had US$1,459 million gross reserve (net of US$916
million) for asbestos exposure at December 31, 2019, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Chubb's exposure to A&E claims principally
arises out of liabilities acquired when it purchased Westchester
Specialty in 1998, CIGNA's P&C business in 1999, and Chubb Corp in
2016.
"Certain active Chubb companies are primarily liable for asbestos,
environmental, and other exposures that they have reinsured to
Century. Accordingly, if Century were to become insolvent and
placed into rehabilitation or liquidation, some or all of the
recoverables due to these active Chubb companies from Century could
become uncollectible. At both December 31, 2019 and 2018, the
aggregate reinsurance recoverables owed by Century to certain
active Chubb companies were approximately US$1.5 billion, on an
undiscounted basis. Chubb believes the active company intercompany
reinsurance recoverables, which relate to direct liabilities
payable over many years, are not impaired. At December 31, 2019
and 2018, Century's carried gross reserves (including reserves
assumed from the active Chubb companies) were US$1.8 billion and
US$2.0 billion, respectively. Should Century's loss reserves
experience adverse development in the future and should Century be
placed into rehabilitation or liquidation, the reinsurance
recoverables due from Century to certain active Chubb companies
would be payable only after the payment in full of certain expenses
and liabilities, including administrative expenses and direct
policy liabilities. Thus, the intercompany reinsurance
recoverables would be at risk to the extent of the shortage of
assets remaining to pay these recoverables."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/JKKagb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Suit vs. Aqua-Chem Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company's lawsuit against its former subsidiary,
Aqua-Chem, Inc., relating to liabilities in connection with
asbestos lawsuits is still stayed, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "On December 20, 2002, the Company filed a
lawsuit (The Coca-Cola Company v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., Civil Action No.
2002CV631-50) in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia
("Georgia Case"), seeking a declaratory judgment that the Company
has no obligation to its former subsidiary, Aqua-Chem, Inc., now
known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. ("Aqua-Chem"), for any past, present
or future liabilities or expenses in connection with any claims or
lawsuits against Aqua-Chem. Subsequent to the Company's filing but
on the same day, Aqua-Chem filed a lawsuit (Aqua-Chem, Inc. v. The
Coca-Cola Company, Civil Action No. 02CV012179) in the Circuit
Court, Civil Division of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin ("Wisconsin
Case"). In the Wisconsin Case, Aqua-Chem sought a declaratory
judgment that the Company is responsible for all liabilities and
expenses not covered by insurance in connection with certain of
Aqua-Chem's general and product liability claims arising from
occurrences prior to the Company's sale of Aqua-Chem in 1981, and a
judgment for breach of contract in an amount exceeding US$9 million
for costs incurred by Aqua-Chem to date in connection with such
claims. The Wisconsin Case initially was stayed, pending final
resolution of the Georgia Case, and later was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice by Aqua-Chem.
"The Company owned Aqua-Chem from 1970 to 1981. During that time,
the Company purchased over US$400 million of insurance coverage,
which also insures Aqua-Chem for some of its prior and future costs
for certain product liability and other claims. The Company sold
Aqua-Chem to Lyonnaise American Holding, Inc., in 1981 under the
terms of a stock sale agreement. The 1981 agreement, and a
subsequent 1983 settlement agreement, outlined the parties' rights
and obligations concerning past and future claims and lawsuits
involving Aqua-Chem. Cleaver-Brooks, a division of Aqua-Chem,
manufactured boilers, some of which contained asbestos gaskets.
Aqua-Chem was first named as a defendant in asbestos lawsuits in or
around 1985 and currently has approximately 15,000 active claims
pending against it.
"The parties agreed in 2004 to stay the Georgia Case pending the
outcome of insurance coverage litigation filed by certain Aqua-Chem
insurers on March 26, 2004. In the coverage action, five plaintiff
insurance companies filed suit (Century Indemnity Company, et al.
v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, et al., Case No.
04CV002852) in the Circuit Court, Civil Division of Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin, against the Company, Aqua-Chem and 16 insurance
companies. Several of the policies that were the subject of the
coverage action had been issued to the Company during the period
(1970 to 1981) when the Company owned Aqua-Chem. The complaint
sought a determination of the respective rights and obligations
under the insurance policies issued with regard to asbestos-related
claims against Aqua-Chem. The action also sought a monetary
judgment reimbursing any amounts paid by the plaintiffs in excess
of their obligations. Two of the insurers, one with a US$15
million policy limit and one with a US$25 million policy limit,
asserted cross-claims against the Company, alleging that the
Company and/or its insurers are responsible for Aqua-Chem's
asbestos liabilities before any obligation is triggered on the part
of the cross-claimant insurers to pay for such costs under their
policies.
"Aqua-Chem and the Company filed and obtained a partial summary
judgment determination in the coverage action that the insurers for
Aqua-Chem and the Company were jointly and severally liable for
coverage amounts, but reserving judgment on other defenses that
might apply. During the course of the Wisconsin insurance coverage
litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements with
several of the insurers, including plaintiffs, who paid funds into
escrow accounts for payment of costs arising from the asbestos
claims against Aqua-Chem.
"On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final
declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the
parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining
defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed. The judgment
directs, among other things, that each insurer whose policy is
triggered is jointly and severally liable for 100 percent of
Aqua-Chem's losses up to policy limits. The court's judgment
concluded the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.
"The Company and Aqua-Chem continued to pursue and obtain coverage
agreements for the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem with
those insurance companies that did not settle in the Wisconsin
insurance coverage litigation. The Company anticipated that a
final settlement with three of those insurers ("Chartis insurers")
would be finalized in May 2011, but the Chartis insurers repudiated
their settlement commitments and, as a result, Aqua-Chem and the
Company filed suit against them in Wisconsin state court to enforce
the coverage-in-place settlement or, in the alternative, to obtain
a declaratory judgment validating Aqua-Chem and the Company's
interpretation of the court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance
coverage litigation.
"In February 2012, the parties filed and argued a number of
cross-motions for summary judgment related to the issues of the
enforceability of the settlement agreement and the exhaustion of
policies underlying those of the Chartis insurers. The court
granted defendants' motions for summary judgment that the 2011
Settlement Agreement and 2010 Term Sheet were not binding
contracts, but denied their similar motions related to plaintiffs'
claims for promissory and/or equitable estoppel. On or about May
15, 2012, the parties entered into a mutually agreeable
settlement/stipulation resolving two major issues: exhaustion of
underlying coverage and control of defense. On or about January
10, 2013, the parties reached a settlement of the estoppel claims
and all of the remaining coverage issues, with the exception of one
disputed issue relating to the scope of the Chartis insurers'
defense obligations in two policy years. The trial court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Company and Aqua-Chem on that one
open issue and entered a final appealable judgment to that effect
following the parties' settlement.
"On January 23, 2013, the Chartis insurers filed a notice of appeal
of the trial court's summary judgment ruling.
"On October 29, 2013, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the
grant of summary judgment in favor of the Company and Aqua-Chem.
"On November 27, 2013, the Chartis insurers filed a petition for
review in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and on December 11, 2013,
the Company filed its opposition to that petition.
"On April 16, 2014, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied the
Chartis insurers' petition for review.
"The Georgia Case remains subject to the stay agreed to in 2004."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/YwCzHD
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 16,299 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 16,299 unresolved claims related to asbestos
matters as of December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company also disclosed that in the year ended December 31,
2019, there were 4,486 asbestos-related claims filed and 4,604
claims resolved.
The Company states, "Claims filed include all asbestos claims for
which notification has been received or a file has been opened.
"Claims resolved include all asbestos claims that have been
settled, dismissed or that are in the process of being settled or
dismissed based upon agreements or understandings in place with
counsel for the claimants."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ToZIX1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. had accrued liability of US$8 million for
asbestos suits at December 31, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company also
deferred US$8 million as regulatory assets related to asbestos
suits at December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State and
federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the
Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have
been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts
specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of
dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are
greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.
"At December 31, 2019, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their
estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years. These estimates were based upon a combination of modeling,
historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Courts have
begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may continue, to
apply different standards for determining liability in asbestos
suits than the standard that applied historically. As a result,
the Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable
possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability
accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the
amount or range of such loss.
"In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted to defer
as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs
incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation
claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/oIigfI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $273MM Accrual at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) has accrued
US$273 million for pending and future asbestos claims and related
legal costs at December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Crown Cork is one of many defendants in a
substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons
alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These
claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the
majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.
Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this U.S.
company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown
Cork. At December 31, 2019, the accrual for pending and future
asbestos claims and related legal costs that are probable and
estimable was US$273 million."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/RMoi73
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Had $1.1MM Liability at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited recorded Defendant Asbestos Liabilities of
US$1,100,593 as of December 31, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company also recorded Defendant Environmental Liabilities of
US$10,279. The Company's Defendant Asbestos and Environmental
Liabilities after estimated future expenses and fair value
adjustments are considered is US$847,685. Considering Other Assets,
the Company's net liabilities relating to defendant asbestos and
environmental exposures is US$398,830.
The Company states, "We acquired DCo on December 30, 2016, and
Morse TEC on October 30, 2019. DCo and Morse TEC hold liabilities
associated with personal injury asbestos claims and environmental
claims arising from their legacy manufacturing operations. These
companies continue to process asbestos personal injury claims in
the normal course of business and are separately managed.
Defendant asbestos liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets
include amounts for loss payments and defense costs for pending and
future asbestos-related claims, determined using standard actuarial
techniques for asbestos exposures. Defendant environmental
liabilities include estimated clean-up costs associated with the
acquired companies' former operations based on engineering
reports.
"Insurance balances recoverable on our consolidated balance sheets
include estimated insurance recoveries relating to these
liabilities. The recorded asset represents our assessment of the
capacity of the insurance agreements to indemnify our subsidiaries
for the anticipated defense and loss payments for pending claims
and projected future claims. The recognition of these recoveries
is based on an assessment of the right to recover under the
respective contracts and on the financial strength of the insurers.
The recorded asset does not represent the limits of our insurance
coverage, but rather the amount we would expect to recover if the
accrued and projected loss and defense costs were paid in full."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/eNYn9P
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had $222.9MM Loss Reserves at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd. had net asbestos loss reserves of US$222.9
million, or 97.5% of total net A&E reserves, at December 31, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "In 2015, we sold Mt. McKinley to Clearwater
Insurance Company. Concurrently with the closing, we entered into
a retrocession treaty with an affiliate of Clearwater. Per the
retrocession treaty, we retroceded 100% of the liabilities
associated with certain Mt. McKinley policies, which had been
reinsured by Bermuda Re. As consideration for entering into the
retrocession treaty, Bermuda Re transferred cash of US$140.3
million, an amount equal to the net loss reserves as of the closing
date. Of the US$140.3 million of net loss reserves retroceded,
US$100.5 million were related to A&E business. The maximum
liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty will be US$440.3
million, equal to the retrocession payment plus US$300.0 million.
We will retain liability for any amounts exceeding the maximum
liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty.
"On December 20, 2019, the retrocession treaty was amended and
included a partial commutation. As a result of this amendment and
partial commutation, gross A&E reserves and correspondingly
reinsurance receivable were reduced by US$43.4 million. In
addition, the maximum liability permitted to be retroceded
increased to US$450.3 million."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/8GMaO2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Had 10,400 Claims Pending at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation had approximately 10,400 premises and product
asbestos claims pending in several jurisdictions as of December 31,
2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Like hundreds of other industrial companies,
we have been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal
injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of
FMC or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or
equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued operations. The
machinery and equipment businesses we owned or operated did not
fabricate the asbestos-containing component parts at issue in the
litigation, and to this day, neither the U.S. Occupational Safety
and Health Administration nor the Environmental Protection Agency
has banned the use of these components. Further, the
asbestos-containing parts for this machinery and equipment were
accessible only at the time of infrequent repair and maintenance.
A few jurisdictions have permitted claims to proceed against
equipment manufacturers relating to insulation installed by other
companies on such machinery and equipment. We believe that,
overall, the claims against FMC are without merit.
"As of December 31, 2019, there were approximately 10,400 premises
and product asbestos claims pending against FMC in several
jurisdictions. Since the 1980s, approximately 116,000 asbestos
claims against FMC have been discharged, the overwhelming majority
of which have been dismissed without any payment to the claimant.
Since the 1980s, settlements with claimants have totaled
approximately US$106 million.
"We intend to continue managing these asbestos-related cases in
accordance with our historical experience. We have established a
reserve for this litigation within our discontinued operations and
believe that any exposure of a loss in excess of the established
reserve cannot be reasonably estimated. Our experience has been
that the overall trends in asbestos litigation have changed over
time. Over the last several years, we have seen changes in the
jurisdictions where claims against FMC are being filed and changes
in the mix of products named in the various claims. Because these
claim trends have yet to form a predictable pattern, we are
presently unable to reasonably estimate our asbestos liability with
respect to claims that may be filed in the future."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/iXAInu
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Paid $153MM to Honeywell in 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that it paid Honeywell International Inc., under
protest, the Euro-equivalent of US$153 million in connection with
the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement during the year
ended December 31, 2019.
The Company also said that it is engaged in litigation against
Honeywell in connection with the Indemnification and Reimbursement
Agreement.
As previously reported, Garrett Motion Inc. became an independent
publicly-traded company on October 1, 2018 through a pro rata
distribution by Honeywell International Inc. of 100% of the
then-outstanding shares of Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the
"Spin-Off").
The Company states, "On September 12, 2018, we entered into the
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement, under which we are
required to make certain payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to
90% of Honeywell's asbestos-related liability payments and accounts
payable, primarily related to the Bendix business in the United
States, as well as certain environmental-related liability payments
and accounts payable and non-United States asbestos-related
liability payments and accounts payable, in each case related to
legacy elements of the Business, including the legal costs of
defending and resolving such liabilities, less 90% of Honeywell's
net insurance receipts and, as may be applicable, certain other
recoveries associated with such liabilities. Pursuant to the terms
of the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement, we are
responsible for paying to Honeywell such amounts, up to a cap equal
to the Distribution Date Currency Exchange Rate (1.16977 USD = 1
EUR) equivalent of US$175 million (exclusive of any late payment
fees) in respect of such liabilities arising in any given calendar
year. This Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement may have
material adverse effects on our liquidity and cash flows and on our
results of operations, regardless of whether we experience a
decline in net sales.
"The payments that we are required to make to Honeywell pursuant to
the terms of the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement will
not be deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement provides that the
agreement will terminate upon the earlier of (x) December 31, 2048
or (y) December 31st of the third consecutive year during which
certain amounts owed to Honeywell during each such year were less
than US$25 million as converted into Euros in accordance with the
terms of the agreement.
"During the year ended December 31, 2019 and in the fourth quarter
of 2018, we paid Honeywell, under protest, the Euro-equivalent of
US$153 million and US$41 million, respectively, in connection with
the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement. Based on
information received related to indemnifiable payments made by
Honeywell, we estimate that the 2019 payment includes approximately
US$34 million of overpayments which, if confirmed by Honeywell in
the Prior Year Aggregate Loss Statement (as defined in the
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement), will be deducted from
the indemnity payment for the second quarter of 2020 in accordance
with the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement.
"We are currently engaged in litigation against Honeywell in
connection with the Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/QUx8Bd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Units Still Face Exposure Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are still named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various
asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of
exposure to products manufactured with components that contained
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
IDEX Corp. states, "These components were acquired from third party
suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of the
defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's
settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination,
administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense
costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to
applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict
whether and to what extent insurance will be available to continue
to cover these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may
respond to claims that are tendered to them. Claims have been
filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States and the United
Kingdom. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment. The balance of the claims have been settled for
various insignificant amounts. Only one case has been tried,
resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No
provision has been made in the financial statements of the Company,
other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and
the Company does not currently believe the asbestos-related claims
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial position, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/QBDQGx
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc.'s subsidiaries had 24,000 pending asbestos-related claims
at December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Our subsidiaries, ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps
LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies in product
liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos
exposure. These claims generally allege that certain products sold
by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by
a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the
extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable.
As of December 31, 2019, there were 24 thousand pending active
claims against our subsidiaries, including Goulds Pumps LLC, filed
in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos.
"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or
Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure. Our
experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are
dismissed without any payment from our subsidiaries. Management
believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or
no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in
large groups, the average cost per resolved claim, as well as the
number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to
period. We expect more asbestos-related suits will be filed in the
future, and we will aggressively defend or seek a reasonable
resolution, as appropriate.
"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state
a specific claim amount. After filing of the complaint, the
plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to
establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including
the number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs
seek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek
to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many
defendants. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate the
maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims estimated
to be filed over the next 10 years."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/tQz5Wj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,233 Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019, that it remains a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately
3,233 plaintiffs as of December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "In each instance, we are one of a large number
of defendants. The asbestos claimants allege that exposure to
asbestos contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to
develop adverse pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and
other lung cancers.
"Since January 1, 1995, we have been a co-defendant in asbestos
cases that have been resolved as follows: 55,114 of those claims
were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to
plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal),
1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 900 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.
"The long-term impact of the asbestos loss contingency, in the
aggregate, on operating results, operating cash flows and access to
capital markets is difficult to assess, particularly since claims
are in many different stages of development and we benefit
significantly from cost-sharing with co-defendants and insurance
carriers. While we intend to contest these lawsuits vigorously,
and believe we have applicable insurance relating to these claims,
there are several risks and uncertainties that may affect our
liability for personal injury claims relating to exposure to
asbestos, including the future impact of changing cost sharing
arrangements or a change in our overall trial experience.
"Asbestos use in welding consumables in the U.S. ceased in 1981."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/IMZqlH
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morse TEC Holds $662.5MM A&E Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that Morse TEC LLC holds US$662.5 million in
gross liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims
and environmental claims arising from BorgWarner Inc.'s legacy
manufacturing operations.
The Company states, "On October 30, 2019, we completed the
acquisition of Morse TEC LLC ("Morse TEC") through our subsidiary,
Enstar Holdings (US) LLC from BorgWarner Inc. Morse TEC holds
US$662.5 million in gross liabilities associated with personal
injury asbestos claims and environmental claims arising from
BorgWarner's legacy manufacturing operations."
The Company previously stated in its Form 10-Q filing for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Morse TEC held
approximately US$0.8 billion in liabilities associated with the
same matters.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, is available at https://is.gd/eNYn9P
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Faces Exposure Claims at Jan. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation is still facing asbestos claims
related to its facilities and older vehicle models, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31,
2020.
The Company states, "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to a number of asbestos-related claims. In
general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted
from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older
vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of
asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we are generally not
the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous
manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly
containing asbestos. We have strongly disputed these claims, and
it has been our policy to defend against them vigorously.
Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants have not
been material in any year to our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows. It is possible that the number of these
asbestos-related claims, and the costs for resolving them, could
become significant in the future."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/e9u2Jm
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Posts $79.2MM Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation recorded gross asbestos
reserves of US$79.2 million as of December 31, 2019, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company's net asbestos reserves amounted to US$58.5 million as
of December 31, 2019.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/IGP0jh
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that it is involved in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts,
including certain cases involving multiple defendants.
The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises. While we dispute the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to vigorously defend these claims, the
ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this
time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and we are unable to reasonably
estimate a range of possible losses. However, unfavorable rulings,
judgments or settlement terms could materially impact our
Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings for certain of these
matters are scheduled to occur in 2020. Certain cases, including
cases that were scheduled in March 2019, were settled without any
material impact in our Consolidated Statements of Operations for
the year ended December 31, 2019."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/X3M8Vb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 592 Exposure Lawsuits at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation remains a defendant in 592 asbestos-related
product liability cases as of December 31, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "We, like many other industrial companies, have
been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts
across the country by persons alleging personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos. We were a defendant in
592 asbestos-related product liability cases as of December 31,
2019, compared to 745 cases as of December 31, 2018, with the
change reflecting new cases, dismissals, settlements and other
dispositions. We have never mined, milled, manufactured or
marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to industrial users
a limited number of products that contained encapsulated asbestos,
but we stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s.
"In virtually all of the cases against us, the plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified damages above a jurisdictional minimum against
multiple defendants who may have manufactured, sold or used
asbestos-containing products to which the plaintiffs were allegedly
exposed and from which they purportedly suffered injury.
"Most of these cases are being litigated in Maryland, Illinois,
Missouri and New York; however, we are also defending cases in
other states. We intend to vigorously defend these cases,
primarily on the basis of the plaintiffs' inability to establish
compensable loss as a result of exposure to our products."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/TgDTp8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy Had 275 Suits Pending at Feb. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy's units have 275 asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits pending as of February 21, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Certain EFH subsidiaries that we acquired as
part of the Merger are defendants in personal injury lawsuits
brought in state courts throughout the U.S. As of February 21,
2020, 275 such lawsuits are pending, with 182 such lawsuits having
been served. These cases allege illness or death as a result of
exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or built by
companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor entities to
the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for product
defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death. They
seek compensatory and punitive damages. Additionally, in
connection with the EFH bankruptcy proceeding, approximately 28,000
proofs of claim were filed on behalf of persons who allege exposure
to asbestos under similar circumstances and assert the right to
file such lawsuits in the future. We anticipate additional
lawsuits will be filed. None of these claims or lawsuits were
discharged in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/PU1w0l
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Had $2.2MM Reserves at December 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corporation has US$2.2 million asbestos
reserves at December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the For
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "The property and casualty industry has
experienced significant loss from claims related to asbestos,
environmental remediation, product liability, mold and other mass
torts. Because we have insured primarily product retailers and
distributors, we do not expect to incur the same level of
liability, particularly related to asbestos, as companies that have
insured manufacturing risks.
"At December 31, 2019, asbestos reserves were US$2.2 million and
environmental reserves were US$20.8 million, for a total reserve of
US$23.0 million, or 2.2% of net losses and loss expenses payable.
Relative to December 31, 2018, asbestos and environmental reserves
increased US$1.0 million and US$4.1 million, respectively."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/zy8Nup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has approximately 30 pending
asbestos claims as of December 31, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "A subsidiary of BNS Holdings Liquidating Trust
("BNS Sub") has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged
asbestos-related toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in
1994 through December 31, 2019. In many cases these claims
involved more than 100 defendants. There remained approximately 30
pending asbestos claims as of December 31, 2019.
"BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for
toxic-tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims
has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that
these defenses will prevail. BNS Sub has insurance policies
covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through
1988. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits
from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims
accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates
of the ultimate settlement costs for the then-existing claims are
revised. As of both December 31, 2019 and 2018, BNS Sub has
accrued US$1,349,000 relating to the open and active claims against
BNS Sub. This accrual includes the amount of unpaid retroactive
billings submitted to the Company by the insurance carriers and
also the Company's best estimate of the likely costs for BNS Sub to
settle these claims outside the amounts funded by insurance.
"There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the
related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and that
BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its estimated
liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that
could have a material effect on the consolidated financial
statements.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/BQoFJK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Had 500 Cases in US and 50 in Europe
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. has less than 500 active and inactive asbestos-related
cases in the United States and less than 50 in Europe, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "For many years we have been and continue to be
subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health problems
as a result of exposure to asbestos. Our current docket of active
and inactive cases is less than 500 cases in the United States and
less than 50 in Europe.
"With respect to the claims filed in the United States, the
substantial majority of the claims are related to alleged exposure
to asbestos in our line of Walker(R) exhaust automotive products
although a significant number of those claims appear also to
involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other than
automotive. A small number of claims have been asserted against
one of our subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to
asbestos products in railroad cars. We believe, based on
scientific and other evidence, it is unlikely that U.S. claimants
were exposed to asbestos by our former products and that, in any
event, they would not be at increased risk of asbestos-related
disease based on their work with these products. Further, many of
these cases involve numerous defendants. Additionally, in many
cases the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify the
jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages.
"With respect to the claims filed in Europe, the substantial
majority relate to occupational exposure claims brought by current
and former employees of Federal-Mogul facilities in France and
amounts paid out were not material. A small number of occupational
exposure claims have also been asserted against Federal-Mogul
entities in Italy and Spain.
"As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of
business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an increased
number of these claims. We vigorously defend ourselves against
these claims as part of our ordinary course of business. In future
periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges to earnings
if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to us. To date,
with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the
judicial process, we have regularly achieved favorable resolutions.
Accordingly, we presently believe that these asbestos-related
claims will not have a material adverse effect on our annual
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/rqsAsl
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 346 Pending Cases at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation has 346 pending asbestos-related personal injury
cases as of December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2019, the Company was a
party to 346 pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,759
claimants primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both
encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain
of its subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining
and exploration industries.
"In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of the
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were
distributed or used.
"The Company may be subjected to significant additional
asbestos-related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases
in which product identification can be made may increase, and the
Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought. Of the 4,759 claims pending at December 31, 2019,
56 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating
the statutory minimum or maximum). At December 31, 2019, of the 56
claims that set forth specific amounts, there was one claim seeking
more than US$5 million for punitive damages.
"In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.
"Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 25 years ago, have been
approximately US$9.4 million. All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately 40% of the
Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective
February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place
agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the
coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims
when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-place
agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity insurance
coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed
by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration
of such expenses. The Company's primary insurance exhausted in
November 2018, and the Company is solely responsible for defense
costs and indemnity payments prior to the commencement of coverage
under this agreement, the duration of which would be subject to the
scope of damage awards and settlements paid.
"Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe that these cases will have
a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/ta9Z23
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Had $3.1MM A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire Group, Inc. had US$3.1 million in direct and assumed
asbestos and environmental loss reserves at December 31, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Included in the other liability and assumed
reinsurance lines of business are reserves for asbestos and other
environmental losses and loss settlement expenses. At December 31,
2019 and 2018, we had US$3.1 million and US$3.0 million,
respectively, in direct and assumed asbestos and environmental loss
reserves. The estimation of loss reserves for environmental claims
and claims related to long-term exposure to asbestos and other
substances is one of the most difficult aspects of establishing
reserves, especially given the inherent uncertainties surrounding
such claims. Although we record our best estimate of loss and loss
settlement expense reserves, the ultimate amounts paid upon
settlement of such claims may be more or less than the amount of
the reserves, because of the significant uncertainties involved and
the likelihood that these uncertainties will not be resolved for
many years."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/RpnqH8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $76MM Libby Costs at December 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$76.0 million
at December 31, 2019, for response costs related to a Vermiculite
mine in Libby, Montana, as well as at vermiculite processing sites
outside of Libby, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019.
The Company states, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby,
Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990. Vermiculite
concentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture of
attic insulation and other products. Some of the vermiculite ore
contained naturally occurring asbestos.
"Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(the "EPA") and other federal, state and local governmental
agencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study
("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area, known as
Operable Unit 3 ("OU3"). The RI/FS will determine the specific
areas within OU3 requiring remediation and will identify possible
remedial action alternatives. Possible remedial actions within OU3
are wide-ranging, from institutional controls such as land use
restrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal,
containment projects, or other protective measures.
"As part of the RI/FS process, Grace contracted an engineering and
consulting firm to develop a range of possible remedial
alternatives and associated cost estimates for OU3. Based on this
work, Grace recorded a pre-tax charge of US$70.0 million in the
2018 third quarter for the estimated costs of remediation of OU3.
Grace believes that this amount should provide for a protective
remedy meeting the statutory requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
"The estimated costs of remediation are preliminary and consist of
several components, each of which may vary significantly as the
remedial alternatives are further developed. It is reasonably
possible that the ultimate costs of remediation could range between
US$30 million and US$170 million. Grace is working closely with
the EPA, and the ultimate remedy will be determined by the EPA
after the RI/FS is finalized. Such remedy will be set forth in a
Record of Decision ("ROD") that is currently expected to be issued
by the EPA no earlier than 2021. Costs associated with the more
active remedial alternatives would be expected to be incurred over
a decade or more. Grace will reevaluate its estimated liability as
remedial alternatives evolve based on further work by the
engineering and consulting firm and discussions with the EPA as the
RI/FS process moves toward a ROD. Technical memoranda expected
prior to the issuance of the ROD may provide insight into the
likely remedial alternatives ultimately selected, allowing Grace to
update its cost of remediation estimate. Depending on the remedial
alternatives that the EPA selects in the ROD, the total cost of
remediating OU3 may exceed Grace's current estimate by material
amounts.
"Grace has cooperated with the EPA in investigating and remediating
a number of formerly owned or operated sites that processed Libby
vermiculite into finished products. Grace has recorded a liability
for remaining expected EPA response and oversight costs, and for
potential future site remediation, where a review has indicated
that liability is probable and the cost is estimable. The EPA may
commence additional investigations in the future at other sites
that processed Libby vermiculite. Liability for unaccrued
additional investigation and remediation costs is probable but not
yet estimable, and could be material.
"Grace recorded pre-tax charges of US$0.0 million, US$70.2 million,
and US$9.5 million in 2019, 2018, and 2017, respectively, for
future costs related to vermiculite-related matters. Grace's
estimated liability for response costs that are currently estimable
for OU3 and vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby at
December 31, 2019 and 2018, totaled US$76.0 million and US$81.7
million, respectively. It is possible that Grace's ultimate
liability for these vermiculite-related matters will exceed current
estimates by material amounts."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/r8G2tq
*********
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 ***