/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200415.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, April 15, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 76
Headlines
AARON'S INC: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action Lawsuit
AARON'S INC: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
AARON'S INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
ALL FOUR SEASONS: Arrowood Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Physicians Healthsource Suit Resolved
ALLSTATE FIRE: Stockdale Bid for Summary Judgment Granted
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Thornton Investigating Lawsuit
ANGELICA CORP: Smith Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
ANGELICA CORPORATION: Smith Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
APACHE CORP: Still Defends Rhea and Allen Suits in Oklahoma
ATRIA SENIOR: Frias Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
AUROBINDO PHARMA: MSP Recovery Sues Over Contaminated Metformin
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Profiles Inc. Suit Over Denial of PPP Loan
BOBCAT NORTH AMERICA: Employees Class Certified in Huff Suit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: $21.5MM Settlement Over Trans-Vaginal Mesh
BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION: Faces Zhang Suit Over Sale of BNT Tokens
BRUCE WALTERS FORD: Mounts Sues Over Sale & Financing of Vehicles
BUMBLE BEE: Price-Fixing Claims to Be Handled in Bankruptcy
CANAAN INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Files Class Action Lawsuit
CANAAN INC: Rosen First to File Class Action Lawsuit
CANAAN INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Ellis Seeks OT Pay for Staffing Analysts
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Special Master Recommends Class Certification
CKE RESTAURANTS: Faces Delsalvo ADA Suit in C.D. California
COLUMBIA DEBT: Faces Apodaca FDCPA Class Suit in W.D. Washington
COLUMBIA GAS: Class Action Lawyers Oppose Reduction in Fees
COMCAST CABLE: Wainblat Suit in Arbitration
COOK (CANADA) INC: Medical Device Class Action Certified on Appeal
COOK COUNTY, IL: Mays Sues Over Risks of Exposure to Coronavirus
CORE VALUES ROADSIDE: Linz FLSA Suit Moved from Ohio to Wash.
DAYTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Law Firms File Class-Action Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Banks Seeks to Certify Class Suit v DOC
DOMINION ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending
DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Action vs. SCANA Ongoing
DOMINION ENERGY: Executes Settlement in RICO-Linked Suit
DOMINION ENERGY: Preliminary Settlement Term Sheet Executed
DOMINION ENERGY: Settlement Agreement Granted Preliminary Approval
EL BALCON DE LAS AMERICAS: Orellana FLSA Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
ELAVON INC: Fabricant Sues over Unsolicited Robocalls
ENESCO PROPERTIES: Violates California Labor Code, Mendez Alleges
ENVISION PHYSICIAN: Paul Alleges Violations of TCPA and FCCPA
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bidwell Sues over Unsolicited Voice Messages
FIRMFINDER LLC: Gibson Sues Over Robocalls
FIRST DATA: Faces Floyd et al. Suit over Unwanted Marketing Calls
FIRST HORIZON: Capital Bank Financial Corp. Faces Searles Suit
FIRST HORIZON: Settlement in GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Already Paid
FIRST TRANSIT: Faces Silva Class Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
FORD MOTOR: Fiesta, Focus Suit Settlement Could Cost $500 Million
FORTY SEVEN INC: Post Balks at Acquisition by Gilead Sciences
FUNKO INC: Faces Nahas Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Price
GENERAL REVENUE: Court Denies Class Certification in "Thompson"
GERON CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit
GOLDEN VALLEY: Faces Suit over Unlawful Medical Data Storage
GRAND CARIBBEAN: Bonkuri Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
HAGYARD EQUINE: Swearingen Class-Action Suit Dismissed
HDR GLOBAL TRADING: Faces Williams Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HPF CHRISTOPHER: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation
HUMANE SOCIETY: Vieten Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
HUNT GUILLOT: Leonard Sues to Recover OT Pay for Field Schedulers
IC SYSTEM: Faces Lezark FDCPA Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
ICBC: Hit With $900M Class Action Over 'Illegal' Scheme
IMPERIAL DADE: Jordan FCRA Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Florida
IMPINJ INC: Suit by Plymouth Retirement System Remains Stayed
INVESTMENT LIMITED: Figueroa Seeks OT Pay for Maintenance Workers
JUUL LABS: Gabbard Product Liability Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky
KNIGHT ADJUSTMENT: Holliday Sues in D. Utah Over FDCPA Violation
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Rahmanan Suit Over Cybersecurity Breach
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Settlement Reached in Cantrell Class Action
MCMILLAN-HENDRYX INC: Faces Gilmore FLSA Sues Over Unpaid Wages
MGP INGREDIENTS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
MID-MINNESOTA MANAGEMENT: Faces Myong FDCPA Suit in W.D. Wash.
MID-MINNESOTA MANAGEMENT: Myong Files FDCPA Suit in Washington
MIDLAND CREDIT: Romero Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practice
MONFRIC: Faces Jenkins Class Suit Over Termination of Employment
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Asks Supreme Court to Review Sunday Ticket
NEW LEAF NATURALS: Allred Sues over Unsolicited Text Message
OKLAHOMA DOC: Beard Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class
ONTRAK VEHICLE: Calzado FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
PACIFIC CHOICE: Coe Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Baumann Sues over Unsolicited Phone Ads
PARAGON COIN: Holland Suit Seeks to Certify Class in IPO Suit
PARK HOTELS & RESORTS: Fails to Remit Service Fees, Morana Claims
PAYPRO USA: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Small Suit Alleges
PHILLIPS 66: Hinkle Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Utility Inspectors
PIONEER NATURAL: Kennedy Sues Over Unpaid OT, Misclassification
QUALCOMM INC: 9th Circuit Calls Timeout in Giant Class Action
QUANTSTAMP INC: Williams Sues to Recover Consideration for Tokens
RE-BODY LLC: Maietta Sues Over Safslim Belly-Fat Reduction Claims
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Metzler Sues Over March 2020 OS Outages
SEALED AIR: UA Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance Suit Ongoing
SNOW JOE LLC: Stewart Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Messages
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL: McCune Wright Arevalo Files Class Action
STAMPS.COM INC: Bid to Dismiss Karinski Securities Suit Narrowed
STATUS RESEARCH: Clifford Sues to Recover Costs Paid for Tokens
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION: Landowners Seek to Certify Class
TD AMERITRADE: Bernstein Challenges Merger With Schwab Affiliate
TELARIA INC: Rigrodsky Files Class Action Over Rubicon Merger
TEXAS BRINE: Saizon Entitled to Judgment Totaling $30K
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Thornton Investigating Shareholders' Claims
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Verhines Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
UNITED PARCEL: Dominguez Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
UNITED SHORE: Bruce Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts
UNITED STATES: Johnson Sues SBA Chief in District of Colorado
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA: Doe Civil Rights Suit Removed to D. Neb.
US BANK: Leitzman Sues in S.D. Indiana Alleging Violation of FCRA
VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Siers Suit Alleging Violation of WARN Act
VERMONT: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in West-Bruyette Case
WCA WASTE: Holmes et al. Sue Over Inadequate Health Plan Notice
WOODWARD GOVERNOR: Dominguez Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
XPO LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Webb FLSA Suit Says
ZYNGA INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over 'Words With Friends' Hack
*********
AARON'S INC: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Aaron's, Inc. (NYSE: AAN) securities between March 2, 2018 and
February 19, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Aaron's
investors have until April 28, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Aaron's investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On February 20, 2020, Aaron's disclosed that its Progressive
segment had reached an agreement in principle with the U.S. Federal
Trade Commission ("FTC") regarding the July 2018 civil
investigative demand, which had sought to determine whether
disclosures related to the Company's financial products were in
violation of the FTC Act. The proposed agreement required Aaron's
to "make a payment of $175 million and enhance certain
compliance-related activities, including monitoring, disclosure and
reporting requirements."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $10.70 per share, or
over 19%, to close at $45.45 per share on February 20, 2020,
thereby injuring investors.
The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Aaron's had inadequate disclosure controls, procedures,
and compliance measures; (2) that, consequently, the operations of
Aaron's Progressive and AB segments were in violation of the FTC
Act and/or relevant FTC regulations; (3) that, consequently,
Aaron's earnings from those segments were partially derived from
unlawful business practices and were thus unsustainable; (4) the
full extent of Aaron's liability regarding the likely negative
consequences of all the foregoing on the Company's financial
results; and (5) that, as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased Aaron's securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Toll-free: (888) 638-4847
E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
Website: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/
[GN]
AARON'S INC: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Aaron's,
Inc. (NYSE:AAN) for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 2,
2018 and February 19, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 28, 2020.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://pr.report/YKlxjB7C to participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Aaron's failed to maintain appropriate
disclosure controls and procedures as well as sufficient compliance
measures. As a result, the Aaron's Progressive Leasing and Aaron's
Business segments were in violation of FTC regulations. The
Company's earnings from those segments were based in part on
unlawful business practices and were therefore unsustainable. Based
on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about Aaron's, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
Contact:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
Tel: 310-301-3335
E-mail: info@schallfirm.com
Web site: www.schallfirm.com
[GN]
AARON'S INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who
acquired Aaron's Inc. (NYSE: AAN) securities during the period from
March 2, 2018 through February 19, 2020, inclusive ("Class
Period").
All investors who purchased shares of Aaron's Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of Aaron's Inc., you may,
no later than April 28, 2020, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
shares of Aaron's Inc.
On July 26, 2018, Aaron's announced that in July 2018 it had
received civil investigative demands ("CIDs") from the FTC
requesting the production of documents and answers to written
questions to determine whether disclosures related to financial
products offered by the Company through its AB and Progressive
segments were in violation of the FTC Act. On this news, Aaron's
stock price fell $5.38 per share, or 11.0%, to close at $43.47 on
July 27, 2018.
On February 20, 2020, Aaron's announced that the Company's
Progressive segment had reached an agreement in principle with FTC
staff regarding the CID from the FTC that Progressive received in
July 2018. The proposed agreement would require Progressive to
"make a payment of $175 million and enhance certain
compliance-related activities, including monitoring, disclosure and
reporting requirements."
On this news, Aaron's stock price fell $10.70 per share, or 19.1%,
to close at $45.45 on February 20, 2020.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at
http://www.whafh.com/
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
E-mail: gstone@whafh.com,
kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735
(212) 545-4774
[GN]
ALL FOUR SEASONS: Arrowood Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY ARROWOOD and AARON RICHARDSON, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. ALL FOUR SEASONS, INC. and DANIEL
L. WATKINS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01209-AT (N.D. Ga., March 17, 2020),
is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged unpaid
overtime wages.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants willfully violated the
FLSA by failing to them and other similarly situated employees for
all hours worked over 40 hours per workweek at one-and-one-half
times their regular hourly rate of pay. The Plaintiffs further
bring a claim of retaliation in violation of the FLSA for
Defendants' retaliatory scheduling and retaliatory alteration of
the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs' employment in response to
the Plaintiffs' complaining about the Defendants' illegal pay
practices.
Mr. Arrowood began working for the Defendants in August 2013. He
was employed as a Service Technician until December 12, 2019. Mr.
Richardson was hired by the Defendants on May 20, 2019. He worked
for All Four Seasons as an Installer and Service Technician until
his termination on February 20, 2020.
All Four Seasons is a privately-owned garage door company. The
Company installs, provides maintenance, and repairs garage doors
for customers operating in Georgia and predominantly in the
Metro-Atlanta, Georgia areas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey A. Daxe, Esq.
Anna M. Diaz-Caballero, Esq.
MOORE, INGRAM, JOHNSON & STEELE LLP
326 Roswell St. NE
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: 770-429-1499
Facsimile: 770-429-8631
E-mail: jad@mijs.com
amdiaz-caballero@mijs.com
- and -
J. Daniel Cole, Esq.
William S. Cleveland, Esq.
Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: 404-873-8000
Facsimile: 404-873-8050
E-mail: dcole@pcwlawfirm.com
dcrawford@pcwlawfirm.com
wcleveland@pcwlawfirm.com
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Physicians Healthsource Suit Resolved
------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class
action suit initiated by Physicians Healthsource, Inc., has been
voluntarily dismissed and the matter is now resolved.
On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc. filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against the company. The complaint alleges that, on
multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, the company
or its agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a
class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the
recipients' express permission or invitation in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (the
"TCPA").
The plaintiff sought $500 for each alleged violation of the TCPA,
treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be willful,
knowing or intentional, and injunctive and other relief. Allscripts
answered the complaint denying all material allegations and
asserting a number of affirmative defenses, as well as
counterclaims for breach of a license agreement.
On March 31, 2016, plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification. On May 31, 2016, the company filed its opposition to
plaintiff's motion for class certification, and simultaneously
moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims.
On June 2, 2017, an order was entered denying class certification
and, accordingly, the case will not proceed on a class-wide basis.
In January 2020, the parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of
the case with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs and
fees. The matter is now resolved.
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., delivers information
technology solutions and services to help healthcare organizations
achieve optimal clinical, financial and operational results. The
company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
ALLSTATE FIRE: Stockdale Bid for Summary Judgment Granted
---------------------------------------------------------
Zack Needles, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge in
Pennsylvania has barreled through a number of roadblocks the
insurance industry has attempted to put up for plaintiffs in the
wake of the state Supreme Court's "seismic" 2019 decision in
Gallagher v. Geico, which invalidated the use of the "household
vehicle exclusion" to bar stacked uninsured and underinsured
motorist benefits.
In a Feb. 27 opinion in Stockdale v. Allstate Fire & Casualty
Insurance, U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied Allstate Fire and Casualty
Insurance's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff Kayla
Stockdale's motion for summary judgment in a putative class action,
one of several similar lawsuits alleging insurance companies have
improperly used household exclusions to bar stacked coverage since
as far back as 1990.
Stockdale had sought to stack UIM coverage under her parents'
Allstate policy (referred to in the opinion as the "Sanders
policy") with the UIM coverage provided under her own policy
(referred to as the "Stockdale policy"). Allstate, however, denied
the claim, citing the household exclusion provision in her parents'
policy, which informed the insured that no UIM coverage would be
available "to you or a resident relative" injured in a vehicle that
wasn't specifically covered by that policy.
In seeking summary judgment in Stockdale's suit, Allstate argued
that the Gallagher decision had limited reach beyond the specific
facts in that case.
Beetlestone rejected that notion, however.
"Allstate's assertion that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court intended
Gallagher to be a 'narrow' decision is misleading," the judge said.
"Allstate makes much of a footnote stating that '[o]ur focus here
is narrow.' That phrase, however, was written in the context of
explaining that the majority's opinion did not endanger other,
non-household coverage exclusions such as ‘exclusions related to
racing and other inherently dangerous activities' and does not
narrow the scope of its holding as to the household exclusion."
Instead, Beetlestone continued, "The Pennsylvania Supreme Court
must be presumed to have meant what it said when it wrote that
'household vehicle exclusions should not and cannot operate as a
pretext to avoid stacking' and that 'these exclusions are
unenforceable as a matter of law,' and this court declines to read
any limiting language into that clear pronouncement."
Allstate also sought to factually distinguish Stockdale's case from
Gallagher, which involved an insured who had attempted to stack UIM
benefits across two Geico policies - one for his motorcycle and one
for his automobiles. Allstate argued that, unlike the plaintiff in
Gallagher, Stockdale had not purchased stacking on her own policy
and the two policies she sought to stack coverage across had been
purchased by two different insureds.
But Beetlestone said both of those factual distinctions between the
two cases were "irrelevant," noting that while Stockdale had not
purchased stacking on her own policy, her parents had paid for
coverage for all "'resident relative[s]'" in their household.
"Here, it is undisputed that Stockdale is making a claim under the
Sanders policy and that she was an insured under that policy,"
Beetlestone said. "Because it is also undisputed that the Sanders
did not waive stacked coverage, and because a household exclusion
'cannot operate as a pretext to avoid stacking' or a 'de facto
waiver' of stacked coverage, the household exclusion in the Sanders
policy is 'unenforceable as a matter of law.'"
While a class has not yet been certified in the case, James
Haggerty of Haggerty, Goldberg, Schleifer, & Kupersmith in
Philadelphia, who argued the appeal on Stockdale's behalf, said
Beetlestone's summary judgment ruling clearly enunciated the two
requirements potential class members will need to meet: (1) the
policy under which they've made a claim must provide for stacked
coverage and (2) that coverage must have been denied on the basis
of a household exclusion provision.
Haggerty said Beetlestone's decision is significant for all
post-Gallagher litigation - of which there has been plenty -
because the judge "considered all of the limitations carriers have
been trying to impose on Gallagher and rejected them."
Counsel for Allstate is Mark Levin of Ballard Spahr in
Philadelphia. [GN]
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Thornton Investigating Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Thornton Law Firm LLP announces that it is investigating a lawsuit
filed against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation on behalf of Anadarko
shareholders (APC). APC investors who have purchased at least
100,000 shares of APC stock between February 20, 2015 and May 2,
2017, that are interested to learn more about the case and the lead
plaintiff process, are encouraged to visit
https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/apc. Shareholders may also contact the
Thornton Law Firm at shareholder@tenlaw.com, or call 617-531-3917.
Interested APC shareholders have until April 20, 2020, to apply to
be lead plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws, and the class has not yet been certified. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member. There is no minimum number of shares required to be a class
member.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is an energy company that develops
oil and natural gas resources in the United States and worldwide.
In August 2019, Anadarko became an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation ("Occidental").
Prior to Anadarko's acquisition by Occidental, Anadarko common
stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"APC."
The Complaint alleges that in 2009, Anadarko discovered the
"Shenandoah" oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. It is alleged that
after drilling an initial exploratory well named Shenandoah-1,
Anadarko spent the following eight years appraising the field by
drilling and evaluating five appraisal wells (Shenandoah-2,
Shenandoah-3, Shenandoah-4, Shenandoah-5 and Shenandoah-6). It is
alleged that during that time, including throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made repeated positive representations about
the prospects and value of the Shenandoah assets.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (1) the value
of the Shenandoah assets and the success of the Shenandoah
appraisal wells were overstated; (2) Anadarko lacked effective
internal control over financial reporting; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, the Defendants' statements about Anadarko's
Shenandoah assets lacked a reasonable basis. It is alleged that
when the market learned the truth about Anadarko, investors
suffered damages.
If you have purchased at least 100,000 shares of APC stock (APC),
please contact the Thornton Law Firm's shareholder rights team at
shareholder@tenlaw.com, or call 617-531-3917 to discuss the lead
plaintiff process.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/apc
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing individual shareholders and institutional investors in
recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its
attorneys have established track records litigating securities
cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on
behalf of shareholders.
Contact:
Guillaume O. Buell
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street, 13th Floor
State Street Financial Center
Boston, Massachusetts 02111
E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com
Tel: 617-531-3917
[GN]
ANGELICA CORP: Smith Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SMITH, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated v. ANGELICA CORPORATION,
Georgia corporation, ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES, INC., a Georgia
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20054682
(Filed Feb. 18, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on March 18, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-01968-KAW to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failing to
provide meal periods and rest periods, failing to pay hourly wages,
and failing to pay vacation wages.
Angelica Corporation is a manufacturer and retailer of uniforms to
service businesses and their employees in the United States.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Alden J. Parker, Esq.
Christopher A. Alvarez, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 210-0400
Facsimile: (916) 210-0401
E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com
calvarez@fisherphillips.com
ANGELICA CORPORATION: Smith Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH SMITH, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated v. ANGELICA CORPORATION, a
Georgia corporation, ANGELICA TEXTILE SERVICES, INC., a Georgia
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20054682
(Filed Feb. 18, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on March 20, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01968 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to
provide meal periods and rest periods failure to pay hourly wages,
and failure to pay vacation wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.
Angelica Corporation provides textile rental and linen management
services to the U.S. healthcare market.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alden J. Parker, Esq.
Christopher S. Alvarez, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 210-0400
Facsimile: (916) 210-0401
E-mail: aparker@fisherphillips.com
calvarez@fisherphillips.com
APACHE CORP: Still Defends Rhea and Allen Suits in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apache Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend the cases, Bigie Lee Rhea v. Apache Corporation, Case No.
6:14-cv-00433-JH, and Albert Steven Allen v. Apache Corporation,
Case No. CJ-2019-00219, in Oklahoma.
Apache is a party to two class actions in Oklahoma styled Bigie Lee
Rhea v. Apache Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00433-JH, and Albert
Steven Allen v. Apache Corporation, Case No. CJ-2019-00219.
The Rhea case has been certified, and the appeal of the
certification was recently denied.
The case includes a class of royalty owners seeking damages of over
$100 million for alleged breach of the implied covenant to market
relating to post-production deductions and NGL uplift value.
The Allen case has not been certified and seeks to represent a
group of owners who have allegedly received late payments under
Oklahoma statutes. The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably
determinable.
Apache said, "While an adverse judgment against the Company is
possible, the Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits
and claims."
Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which explores
for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas
liquids. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
ATRIA SENIOR: Frias Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEFINA FRIAS, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated v. ATRIA SENIOR LIVING,
INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CECG00565 (Filed
Feb. 13, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Fresno, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on March 17, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-at-00201 to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code by failing to pay lawful wages owed and failing to
provide meal periods and rest periods compensation.
Atria Senior is a provider of assisted living, independent living
and memory care retirement communities.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher A. Crosman, Esq.
Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: ccrosman@seyfarth.com
elevy@seyfarth.com
AUROBINDO PHARMA: MSP Recovery Sues Over Contaminated Metformin
---------------------------------------------------------------
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, on behalf of similarly-situated
healthcare insurers v. AUROBINDO PHARMA, LTD.; AUROBINDO USA, INC.;
AUROLIFE PHARMA, LLC; HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; EMCURE
PHARMACEUTICALS; and JOHN DOES 1- 100, Case No. 1:20-cv-21456-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., April 3, 2020), is brought to recover payments
unlawfully induced by the Defendants that the Plaintiff and Class
Members made for the Defendants' contaminated and adulterated
Metformin drugs.
Metformin is the most prescribed oral pharmaceutical drug for
patients with type 2 diabetes, especially overweight patients. In
light of the volume of pharmaceutical drugs prescribed every day,
is it critical to ensure that these drugs, including metformin, are
safe to consume. Recent developments have questioned the safety of
the pharmaceutical drug supply in the United States. In July 2018,
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced a recall of
valsartan, a common medication used to treat high blood pressure in
patients, because it was contaminated with N nitrosodimethylamine
("NDMA"), a carcinogenic--and liver-damaging--contaminant.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knowingly and with an
intent to defraud, concealed from the Plaintiff and Class Members
the material facts concerning their pervasive Current Good
Manufacturing Practices violations, and made express and implied
representations to the Plaintiff's assignors and Class Members that
their Metformin drugs conformed to applicable standards of quality,
purity, identity and strength, were not adulterated, and were
merchantable, fit for human consumption and fit for their intended
purpose when, in truth and in fact, the Metformin drugs were
contaminated with a probable human carcinogen.
Each package of Metformin drugs sold in the United States contained
a printed insert, which represented that the drug in the package
had the specified properties, conformed to the specified
description, and carried a guarantee of quality assurance. The
Defendants knowingly or extremely recklessly made these
representations with actual knowledge, or reason to know, that they
were false, the Plaintiff avers.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' misrepresentations and
omissions were material to the decisions by the Plaintiff's
assignors and Class Members to pay for the Metformin drugs, and in
paying for those drugs, the Plaintiff's assignors and Class Members
reasonably relied on those misrepresentations and omissions. The
Plaintiff's assignors and the Class Members would not have
continued paying for the drugs if they had known the drugs were
adulterated, which meant the drugs could not lawfully be sold or
distributed, and were, therefore, worthless. The Plaintiff and the
Class Members have the right to recover all sums of money they paid
for the drugs, says the complaint.
Plaintiff MSPRC is a Delaware series limited liability company with
its principal place of business at Miami, Florida.
Aurobindo has been engaged in manufacturing, selling, and
distributing adulterated or misbranded (or both) MCDs in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jorge A. Mestre, Esq.
Andres Rivero, Esq.
Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
David L. Daponte, Esq.
RIVERO MESTRE LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
Miami, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 445-2500
Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
Email: arivero@riveromestre.com
jmestre@riveromestre.com
arolnick@riveromestre.com
cwhorton@riveromestre.com
npuentes@riveromestre.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Profiles Inc. Suit Over Denial of PPP Loan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Profiles, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00894-SAG (D. Md., April 3, 2020), challenges the
Defendants' denial of the Plaintiff to apply for a loan under the
Paycheck Protection Program.
The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, violations of
the Small Business Administration's 7(A) loan program, a
declaratory judgment, and a preliminary and permanent injunction.
At a time of severe national need, the Defendants chose privileged
discriminatory policies of corporate greed over the needs of
America's small businesses, the Plaintiff avers. Authorized by
Congress and the President under the CARES Act and its loan
programs to administer billions of dollars in federal funding to
small businesses in a fair, equitable and uniform manner, the
Defendants implemented a loan process that unlawfully prioritized
their existing borrowing clients and barred their depository
clients and other small businesses from even applying for funds
from the governmental loan programs, the Plaintiff alleges.
According to the Plaintiff, nothing in the CARES Act authorizes or
permits the Defendants to pick and choose who would gain access to
or benefit from the federally backed lending program. And, the
priority of access to these limited funds is material--the demand
is overwhelming as America responds to the economic tsunami of
COVID-19 upon small businesses. There is no justification for
requiring depository clients and other small businesses to go to
the end of the line.
The Paycheck Protection Program, which is part of the $2 trillion
stimulus package created by the CARES Act in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic that was signed in to law on March 27, 2020,
empowers lenders to make available as much as $349 billion in
government-guaranteed loans to cover eight weeks of payroll and
other expenses. Indeed, BOA has denied access to the PPP program to
small businesses that do not have a "lending" relationship with
BOA. Profiles alleges that it, which has a depository relationship
with BOA, was prohibited by BOA from even applying for a PPP loan
with BOA, despite meeting the statutory requirements for a PPP
loan. BOA's discriminatory practices are abhorrent and in violation
of federal law, says the complaint.
Profiles Inc. is a public relations firm incorporated in Maryland.
Bank of America is a diversified global financial services company
and a bank holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Celeste Bruce, Esq.
Charles S. Fax, Esq.
RIFKIN WEINER LIVINGSTON LLC
7979 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 400
Bethesda, MD 20814
Phone: (301) 951-0150
Telecopier: (301) 951-0172
Cell Phone: (410) 274-1453
Email: cbruce@rwllaw.com
cfax@rwllaw.com
- and -
Alan M. Rifkin, Esq.
Liesel J. Schopler, Esq.
RIFKIN WEINER LIVINGSTON LLC
225 Duke of Gloucester Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: (410) 269-5066
Telecopier: (410) 269-1235
Email: arifkin@rwllaw.com
lschopler@rwlls.com
- and -
Barry L. Gogel, Esq.
2002 Clipper Park Road, Suite 108
Baltimore, MD 21211
Phone: (410) 769-8080
Telecopier: (410) 769-8811
Email: bgogel@rwllaw.com
BOBCAT NORTH AMERICA: Employees Class Certified in Huff Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit styled as STEVEN HUFF v. BOBCAT NORTH
AMERICA, LLC; BOBCAT DISPOSAL OF SARASOTA, LLC; RUSSO AND SONS,
LLC; M&MR OPERATIONS, INC.; MIKE RUSSO; and MARILYN RUSSO, Case No.
6:19-cv-00861-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr.
entered an order:
1. granting Steven Huff's class representative's motion for
conditional class certification;
2. conditionally certifying a class of:
"individuals who: (1) were employed as drivers by Bobcat
North America, LLC, d/b/a Orion Waste Solutions, Bobcat
Disposal of Sarasota, LLC, Russo and Sons, LLC, M&MR
Operations, Inc. formerly Russo and Sons, Inc., Mike
Russo, or Marilyn Russo at the Ocoee, Florida location
during the three years preceding March 8, 2019; (2) were
paid an hourly rate; (3) were victims of Defendants'
timesheet manipulation and/or automatic lunch deduction
policy; and (4) worked over forty hours in a work week but
were not paid for all overtime hours worked";
3. appointing Steven Huff as Class Representative;
4. appointing N. Ryan LaBar and Scott C. Adams of LaBar &
Adams, P.A. as class counsel.
5. directing the Defendants within 10 days of this Order to
provide the Plaintiff with names, dates of employment,
last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email
addresses for drivers employed at Defendants' Ocoee,
Florida location for the three years preceding March 8,
2019 in a computer readable format.
6. approving the Plaintiff's Proposed Notice and consent
form;
7. authorizing the Plaintiff to send the approved notice and
consent form to each putative class member via email and
U.S. mail within five days after the Defendants provide
Plaintiff with the list of contact information; and
8. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to file all consent-to-
join forms within 90 days after the notice and consent-to-
join forms are served.
The Court said, "Latching onto the allegation of common policies
and ignoring the Plaintiffs' allegation of similar pay and job
responsibilities, the Defendants argue its policies did not per se
violate the Fair Labot Standards Act and that individualized
circumstances pertaining to each driver is what's at issue in this
case. As the Defendants concede, individualized assessments are
typically inappropriate at this stage and Defendants' cited cases
do not persuade the Court otherwise. Huff has shown a reasonable
basis for his claim that similarly situated employees are
interested in opting into this action, so the Court conditionally
certifies a collective class of drivers who worked at the
Defendants' Ocoee location during the three years preceding March
8, 2019."
Huff worked for Defendants from 2014 until 2018 in Ocoee, Florida.
He inspected vehicles, operated heavy equipment, drove trucks,
delivered equipment, and performed other manual labor. The
Defendants paid Huff hourly for his work but, Huff alleges,
Defendants failed to pay him overtime. Huff says he worked numerous
weekends exceeding forty hours without overtime pay.
The Defendants provide waste disposal services to the construction
industry.[CC]
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: $21.5MM Settlement Over Trans-Vaginal Mesh
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Montgomery, writing for Royal Canadia International, reports
that hundreds of Canadian women have been awarded a settlement of
$21.5 million related to a medical device called "trans-vaginal
mesh".
The polypropylene screen is used to as a sort of sling to support
and treat stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse.
With the product implanted in thousands of Canadian women, many
later reported side effect such as urinary problems, difficulty
walking, emotional stress and pain during sexual intercourse.
In February 2010, and again in May 2014, Health Canada issued
advisories saying, "although many women treated with these devices
have had good outcomes, Health Canada continues to receive reports
of complications, including some serious and life-altering events,
associated with the use of these surgical devices."
The class action says the maker failed to adequately warn of the
serious side effects possible.
The settlement was reached between about 325 women with implants
and the manufacturer of the device, Boston Scientific, the Canadian
subsidiary of the Delaware firm.
The plastic net-like implants are used to treat conditions such as
stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. The implants
are designed to reinforce a weak vaginal wall or support the
urethra or bladder neck.
The company stopped selling the devices for pelvic prolapse last
July. Removal is challenging as it was not designed to be removed
and because tissue quickly adheres to it.
Other makers of similar mesh devices include Johnson & Johnson,
American Medical Systems, and Covidien. [GN]
BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION: Faces Zhang Suit Over Sale of BNT Tokens
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Zhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BPROTOCOL FOUNDATION, EYAL HERTZOG, YEHUDA LEVI, GUY
BENARTZI, and GALIA BENARTZI, Case No. 1:20-cv-02810 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 3, 2020), is brought on behalf of investors who purchased
Bancor Network Tokens in the United States, to recover the
consideration paid for the BNT tokens, together with interest
thereon, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
Various digital assets can reside on blockchains, including
cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, as well as
so-called "smart contracts" that operate under a set of
predetermined conditions agreed to by users. Certain of these
digital tokens are classified as "utility tokens" and are
associated with particular projects. Their primary purpose is to
allow the holder to use or access the associated project. Other
tokens are more speculative and are referred to as "security
tokens," and like a traditional security essentially represent
one's investment in a project. Although they take value from the
startup behind the project, they do not give the holder ownership
in that startup.
Rather, investors purchase these tokens with the idea that their
value will increase as the network in which the token can be used
is expanded based upon the managerial efforts of the issuer and
those developing the project. Because such "security tokens" are
properly classified as securities under federal and state law, the
issuers of these tokens, including Bancor, were required to file
registration statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. Bancor, however, failed to do so, the Plaintiff avers.
By selling these unregistered tokens to investors, Bancor reaped
millions of dollars in profits.
According to the complaint, the scheme worked as follows: First,
Bancor issued a "whitepaper" to investors that described in highly
technical terms the supposed utility to which BNT would be placed.
The Bancor whitepaper, however, omitted the disclosures that
securities laws and the SEC have long deemed essential to investor
protections in initial public offerings, including use of "plain
English" to describe the offering; a required list of key risk
factors; a description of key information and incentives concerning
management; warnings about relying on forward- looking statements;
an explanation of how the proceeds from the offering would be used;
and a standardized format that investors could readily follow.
Without these critical disclosures, investors in BNT tokens were
thus left to fend for themselves--precisely the opposite of what
the securities laws require.
Because Bancor did not disclose at issuance that BNT are
securities, investors reasonably understood that BNT were not
subject, at issuance, to United States securities laws, the
Plaintiff contends. In addition, Bancor further confirmed to
investors at issuance that BNT was not a security by failing to
file a registration statement for it with the SEC. Although Bancor
described the BNT tokens as something other than securities, they
were securities. This was not clear to a reasonable investor at
purchase, however, and would not have been reasonably apparent
until, at the earliest, April 3, 2019, when the SEC released a
detailed "Framework" to analyze digital assets, indicating that BNT
and other similar digital tokens are "investment contracts" and
therefore securities under Section 2 of the Securities Act of 1933,
the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover the
consideration paid for the BNT tokens with interest thereon at the
legal rate, or the equivalent in monetary damages plus interest at
the legal rate from the date of purchase, says the complaint.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class
brings claims to recover the consideration paid for the BNT tokens,
together with interest thereon, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiff purchased BNT, an unregistered security.
BProtocol Foundation is a blockchain focused software development
company that is currently developing and promoting the Bancor
blockchain protocol, and is the issuer of BNT.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
Joshua Margolin, Esq.
Mitchell Nobel, Esq.
SELENDY & GAY, PLLC
1290 Sixth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10104
Email: pselendy@selendygay.com
jgoldstein@selendygay.com
jmargolin@selendygay.com
mnobel@selendygay.com
- and -
Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
Edward Normand, Esq.
Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
Joseph M. Delich, Esq.
Richard R. Cipolla, Esq.
ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Email: kyle@rcfllp.com
tnormand@rcfllp.com
vel@rcfllp.com
jdelich@rcfllp.com
rcipolla@rcfllp.com
BRUCE WALTERS FORD: Mounts Sues Over Sale & Financing of Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Mounts, Bonnie Mounts, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons v. Bruce Walters Ford Sales, Inc. and
Credit Acceptance Corporation, Case No. 7:20-cv-00046-REW-EBA (E.D.
Ky., April 3, 2020), alleges unlawful conduct on the part of the
Defendants in connection with consumer transactions involving the
sale and financing of motor vehicles.
The Defendants, Walters and CAC, act in concert to both sell and
finance the sale of motor vehicles using a process devised and
created by CAC, according to the complaint. This "process" or
"system" involves documentation provided to Walters by CAC as well
as the training in the use of same in connection with the sale and
financing of motor vehicles. In the Plaintiffs' and all other
transactions involving both the Defendants, Walters initially acts
as both a seller and creditor who executes retail installment sale
contracts [hereinafter "Riscs"] with each buyer and then sells or
assigns each Risc to CAC through a prearranged process or
agreement.
In such transactions, CAC requires that all documentation,
including the Risc, be electronically signed by each buyer as part
of this process. Each of these described transactions must comply
with the federal E-Sign Act, and Ky's version of the Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act. In order to use an electronic
signature both of these statutes require the consent of the
consumer be first obtained and, most importantly, full disclosure
of the consequences, rights, duties and obligations involving the
use of an electronic signature to consummate each of these
transactions, the Plaintiffs note.
The Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Walters does not fully
disclose all of this information to consumers or follow the process
required by these statutes. The allegations in the lawsuit
specifically apply to the sale and financing of GAP to its
customers where consent is not properly obtained. When assigned to
CAC, these defects are apparent on the face of documents it
receives from Walters, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs, David Mounts and Bonnie Mounts, mother and son, are
individual consumers, who reside in the state of West Virginia,
Mingo County.
Bruce Walters Ford Sales, Inc. is a domestic corporation and a
creditor.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven C. Shane, Esq.
P.O. Box 73067
Bellevue, KY 41073
Phone: (859) 431-7800
Facsimile: (859) 431-3100
Email: shanelaw@fuse.net
BUMBLE BEE: Price-Fixing Claims to Be Handled in Bankruptcy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Smith, writing for Under Current News, reports that a judge's
decision to deny "summary judgment" to plaintiffs in the
price-fixing class-action lawsuit against US tuna canner Bumble Bee
Foods means that those claims will be resolved in the company's
bankruptcy proceeding.
San Diego, California-based federal judge Janis Sammartino, who is
overseeing the class-action filled against Bumble Bee, StarKist &
Co and Tri-Union Seafoods' Chicken of the Sea International, ruled
March 2 against the summary judgment request.
She noted that the plaintiffs' lawyers have engaged with Bumble
Bee's new parent company, Taiwan's FCF Co, and are negotiating a
settlement to resolve the price-fixing claims.
"This settlement is designed to ensure that any remaining funds
that the Bumble Bee estate can claw back from a variety of sources
can be distributed to creditors, including general unsecured
creditors, such as the plaintiffs, through a liquidating trust.
Once it is determined what amount of funds remain of the Bumble Bee
estate, the plaintiffs intend to seek a further order or orders of
this court to determine how funds will be distributed to the
classes," the law firm Hausfeld, which is representing distributors
who bought tuna from Bumble Bee, wrote.
Given that the plaintiffs' attorneys have not asked to lift the
stay that protects bankruptcy filers from ongoing litigation, judge
Sammartino chose to deny the summary judgment request.
As reported earlier by Undercurrent News, the sale of Bumble Bee
Foods to FCF Co means the US government misses out on $56 million
it would have received in the event of a sale outside of a
bankruptcy process, sources said.
The sources added that outside of a settlement, the civil litigants
claiming damages from price-fixing by the US shelf-stable seafood
giant would end up with nothing.
FCF agreed to pay the $17 million outstanding from the $25 million
fine from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) as part of its $925.6
million offer for Bumble Bee. However, the DOJ was set to get a
total of $81.5 million if Lion Capital sold the company was sold
within five years, so $56.5 million more.
Bumble Bee previously claimed that the lack of a settlement in the
bulk of the civil price-fixing suits against it forced the company
to abandon a sale of its Canadian business and ultimately file for
Chapter 11 with a stalking horse bidder, FCF.
Bumble Bee was only able to settle around a third of the 50
class-action lawsuits filed against the company for its role in
tuna price-fixing, according to an affidavit from Kent McNeil,
chief financial officer of Bumble Bee, filed in December in
connection to the company's Chapter 11 filing and FCF offer. [GN]
CANAAN INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Oregon on behalf of investors that purchased Canaan, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CAN) securities pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering, which commenced on or about November 20, 2019 (the
"IPO" or "Offering"). Investors have until May 4, 2020 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Canaan, a company specializing in Blockchain servers and ASIC
microprocessor solutions for use in bitcoin mining, completed its
initial public offering in November of 2019. Then, on February 20,
2020, an investment analyst operating under the pseudonym Marcus
Aurelius published a short report entitled "Canaan Fodder"
claiming, among other things, that Canaan was engaged in several
undisclosed related-party transactions that lacked economic
substance.
For example, the report alleges that just one month before Canaan's
IPO, a tiny Hong Kong company named Grandshores announced that it
had agreed to purchase up to $150 Million worth of the company's
equipment in 2020, even though Grandshores' entire market cap is
only $50 million and it reports having only $16 million in cash on
hand. Purportedly, the Chairman of Grandshores owns 9.7% of
Canaan's outstanding shares through entities he controls -- yet
this relationship is not mentioned anywhere in Canaan's SEC
filings.
The complaint, filed on March 4, 2020, alleges that the
Registration Statement for the IPO contained false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
purported "strategic cooperation" was actually a transaction with a
related party; (2) the company's financial health was worse than
what was actually reported; (3) the company had recently removed
numerous distributors from its website just prior to the IPO, many
of which were small or suspicious businesses; and (4) several of
the company's largest Chinese clients in prior years were clients
who were not in the Bitcoin mining industry and, thus, would likely
not be repeat customers. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
If you purchased Canaan securities pursuant or traceable to the
IPO, have information, would like to learn more about these claims,
or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Melissa
Fortunato or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com.
Contact:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
Tel: (212) 355-4648
E-mail: investigations@bespc.com
Web site: http://www.bespc.com/
[GN]
CANAAN INC: Rosen First to File Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
first filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Canaan Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN) pursuant and/or traceable
to the Company's initial public offering commenced on or about
November 20, 2019. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Canaan
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Canaan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1785.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the purported "strategic cooperation" was actually a
transaction with a related party; (2) the company's financial
health was worse than what was actually reported; (3) the company
had recently removed numerous distributors from its website just
prior to the IPO, many of which were small or suspicious
businesses; and (4) several of the Company's largest Chinese
clients in prior years were clients who were not in the Bitcoin
mining industry and, thus, would likely not be repeat customers.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 4,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1785.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.
Contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
http://www.rosenlegal.com/
[GN]
CANAAN INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, a national securities and
consumer rights litigation firm, is notifying investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Canaan, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CAN), and certain other defendants, related to alleged violations
of the Securities Act of 1933. If you purchased Canaan American
Depository Shares ("ADS") issued in connection with the Company's
November 20, 2019 initial public offering ("IPO"), and have
suffered a significant loss, actual or retained, you are encouraged
to contact Jonathan Zimmerman for additional information at (888)
398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com.
The lawsuit, which has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon, alleges that Canaan, and the
other named defendants, made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a purported "strategic
cooperation" agreement with Hangzhou Grandshores Weicheng
Technology Co., Ltd was actually a transaction with a related
party; (2) the Company's financial health was worse than what was
actually reported; (3) the Company had recently removed numerous
distributors from its website just prior to the IPO, many of which
were small or suspicious businesses; and (4) several of the
Company's largest Chinese clients in prior years were clients who
were not in the Bitcoin mining industry and, thus, would likely not
be repeat customers.
According to the lawsuit, when the true details reached the market,
Canaan's ADSs fell over 6.8%, closing at $5.32 per ADS on February
20, 2020.
If you purchased Canaan ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to Canaan's
IPO, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal
rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Jonathan Zimmerman
at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff
deadline is May 4, 2020.
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.
Contact:
Jonathan Zimmerman
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820
Tel: (888) 398-9312
E-mail: jzimmerman@scott-scott.com
[GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Ellis Seeks OT Pay for Staffing Analysts
-----------------------------------------------------
HOLLY ELLIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC; CAPITAL ONE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION; AND CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00234-MHL (E.D. Va., April 1, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated staffing analysts
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as staffing analyst at
Capital One's West Creek office complex in Goochland County,
Virginia in 1997 and worked continuously until her termination on
March 7, 2019.
Capital One Services, LLC is a financial services provider with
principal place of business at 1680 Capital One Drive, McLean,
Virginia.
Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company that
specializes in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings
accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
Capital One, National Association is a McLean, Virginia-based bank
operator that offers financial products and services such as
personal and business checking, savings accounts, investment,
mortgages, issues credit card, business loans, and commercial
banking solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
CURWOOD LAW FIRM PLC
530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 788-0808
Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Special Master Recommends Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
court-appointed special master in the class action suit entitled,
In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. Securities Litigation, No.
1:17-cv-01580-LGS, has issued a report and recommendation regarding
class certification and appointment of class representatives and
class counsel, recommending that the court grant the plaintiffs'
motion.
On March 2, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking class
action status on behalf of purchasers of Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V. (CB&I) common stock and alleging damages on their
behalf arising from alleged false and misleading statements made
during the class period from October 30, 2013 to June 23, 2015. The
case is captioned: In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
Securities Litigation, No. 1:17-cv-01580-LGS.
The defendants in the case are: CB&I; a former chief executive
officer of CB&I; a former chief financial officer of CB&I; and a
former controller and chief accounting officer of CB&I. On June 14,
2017, the court named ALSAR Partnership Ltd. as lead plaintiff.
On August 14, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, arising out of alleged misrepresentations about
CB&I’s accounting for the acquisition of The Shaw Group, CB&I's
accounting with respect to the two nuclear projects being
constructed by The Shaw Group, and CB&I's financial reporting and
public statements with respect to those two projects.
On May 24, 2018, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
The parties have completed fact discovery and are currently engaged
in expert discovery.
On February 4, 2019, lead plaintiff ALSAR Partnership Ltd. and
additional plaintiffs Iron Workers Local 40, 361, & 417 – Union
Security Funds and Iron Workers Local 580 – Joint Funds moved for
class certification and appointment as class representatives.
On October 16, 2019, the court-appointed special master issued a
report and recommendation regarding class certification and
appointment of class representatives and class counsel,
recommending that the court grant the plaintiffs' motion.
McDermott said, "We are not able at this time to determine the
likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter and,
accordingly, no amounts have been accrued as of December 31, 2019.
We believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend
against them vigorously."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
McDermott International, Inc., a corporation incorporated under the
laws of the Republic of Panama in 1959, is a fully integrated
provider of engineering, procurement, construction and installation
("EPCI") and technology solutions to the energy industry. The
company designs and build end-to-end infrastructure and technology
solutions to transport and transform oil and gas into a variety of
products. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
CKE RESTAURANTS: Faces Delsalvo ADA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CKE Restaurants
Holdings, Inc. The class action lawsuit is captioned as Brett
Delsalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc. doing business as: Carls
Jr., a Delaware corporation and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-02665-MWF-JC (C.D. Cal., March 20, 2020),
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
CKE Restaurants is the parent company of the Carl's Jr., Hardee's,
Green Burrito, and Red Burrito fast food restaurant brands. The
Company's headquarters are located in Franklin, Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
COLUMBIA DEBT: Faces Apodaca FDCPA Class Suit in W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Debt
Recovery, LLC. The case is styled as Monica Apodaca, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Columbia Debt
Recovery, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-05321 (W.D. Wash., April 3, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Columbia Recovery Group LLC or CRG is a debt collection
agency.[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
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
COLUMBIA GAS: Class Action Lawyers Oppose Reduction in Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jill Harmacinski, writing for The Eagle-Tribune, reports that class
action attorneys handling the $143 million Merrimack Valley gas
disaster settlement criticized Lawrence Mayor Daniel Rivera, saying
he made a political, not legal, argument by asking for their $28
million in legal fees to be reduced by 75%.
"From the inception, here Mayor Rivera makes not a legal argument,
but a political one. From the inception of the case he has
disparaged the lawyers involved and the profession at large in
court and in the media, without any basis," court documents filed
by the class action attorneys state.
The legal fees in the $143 million settlement would drop from $28
million to $7 million if Judge James Lang accepts Rivera's request.
By his estimate, Rivera said attorneys involved in the settlement
are making $44,000 daily for their work since the gas disaster
Sept. 13, 2018.
A final hearing on the gas disaster civil action lawsuit was held
Feb. 27 in Salem Superior Court. The settlement includes thousands
of dollars of lump sum and itemized payments for gas disaster
victims in Lawrence, North Andover and Andover.
Judge Lang took the settlement under advisement but has not issued
a final ruling.
The final hearing on the $143 million settlement came a day after
Columbia Gas pleaded guilty to federal charges and agreed to pay a
$53 million fine.
Competing utility Eversource Energy announced its $1.1 billion plan
to buy the Massachusetts portion of the company that same night.
Columbia Gas officials have said they have spent a billion dollars
already on gas disaster recovery in the communities. [GN]
COMCAST CABLE: Wainblat Suit in Arbitration
--------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned ROBERT WAINBLAT, for himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No.
19-10976-FDS. (D. Mass.).
A stipulation of dismissal was filed by the Plaintiff following the
Court's decision.
Wainblat alleges that Comcast has violated his rights as a cable
television subscriber under federal and Massachusetts laws. He also
asserts class allegations on behalf of similarly situated
individuals.
Comcast has moved to compel arbitration pursuant the terms of an
arbitration provision contained within the subscriber agreement
between the parties.
The Federal Arbitration Act governs the enforcement of written
arbitration agreements implicating interstate commerce. It
provides, in relevant part, as follows: "A written provision in a
contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by
arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract
or transaction shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save
upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation
of any contract."
Comcast seeks to enforce the arbitration clause. According to the
Court, the only real dispute concerns whether a valid agreement to
arbitrate exists. Plaintiff contends that the clause is
unenforceable because Comcast can modify the agreement at any time,
and therefore its obligations under the agreement are illusory.
National Federation of the Blind v. The Container Store, Inc., 904
F.3d 70, 85 (1st Cir. 2018).
A unilateral right to modify an arbitration provision can render it
unenforceable. In National Federation, the First Circuit declined
to enforce an arbitration provision on the ground that the
arbitration agreement was an illusory promise on the part of the
defendant.
According to the Court, Comcast's ability to modify the agreement
is not so unlimited. The 2017 Subscriber Agreement provides that
"arbitrations shall be administered by the AAA pursuant to its
Consumer Arbitration Rule, as modified by the version of this
Arbitration Provision that is in effect when you notify [Comcast]
about your dispute." That language does not give Comcast
unfettered ability to modify the Arbitration Provision as applied
to a pending matter, a consumer can lock in the then-current
arbitration terms simply by giving notice of a dispute.
Plaintiff's efforts to distinguish the National Federation are
unpersuasive. He argues that Comcast could alter the Arbitration
Provision if it became aware of a possible subscriber claim, as
long as such a claim had not yet been filed. But that possibility
is not fatal to the agreement. Because subscribers can reject
changes to their agreements within 30 days of being provided notice
of the change, a subscriber who had accrued but not commenced a
claim could reject an unfavorable amendment and preserve the terms
of the contract as they were at the time of claim accrual.
Finally, plaintiff contends that Comcast has the power to change
the arbitration provisions after it as opposed to a subscriber
initiates a dispute. The contract is arguably ambiguous on that
point. But that potential ambiguity is likewise not fatal.
To begin, the Court explains, that is a hypothetical scenario,
which did not occur in this case. Furthermore, that interpretation
would be unreasonable in the context of the larger agreement. As a
matter of generally accepted contract interpretation principles
particularly the principles of applying plain meaning and
preferring reasonable interpretations that find validity it is
likely that such an interpretation would be rejected. There is
certainly no reason to impose a strained interpretation of the
contract, as applied to a purely hypothetical set of facts, in
order to find that the arbitration agreement is invalid.
In short, because Comcast's obligations under the Arbitration
Provision were not illusory, the Arbitration Provision is valid and
enforceable.
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration will be granted.
A full-text copy of the District Court's November 4, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yecew9u6
from Leagle.com
Robert Wainblat, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by David F. Slade -- dslade@cbplaw.com --
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, pro hac vice, Dominic Valerian -
dvalerian@gallo.law - Gallo LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph H. Bates, III
, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, 519 W. 7th St., Little Rock
Arkansas 72201, Ray E. Gallo - rgallo_at_gallo.law - Gallo LLP, pro
hac vice & Kenneth A. Newberg , Corwin & Corwin, LLP, 600 Unicorn
Park Drive, Woburn, MA 01801
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
compant, Defendant, represented by Alexander K. Parachini -
akp@dcglaw.com - Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, LLP, Meredith C. Slawe
- mslawe@akingump.com - Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael W. McTigue, Jr. - mmctigue@akingump.com - Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Peter K. Levitt -
pkl@dcglaw.com - Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, LLP.
COOK (CANADA) INC: Medical Device Class Action Certified on Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Royal, Alexandra Urbanski, and Patricia Joseph of Stikeman
Elliott LLP wrote in MONDAQ.com that in the Kuiper v. Cook (Canada)
Inc. case, Ontario's Divisional Court ruled in favour of certifying
a failure to warn claim in a product liability class action
relating to IVC filters, which are medical devices designed to
prevent blood clots from reaching the heart and lungs. The
Divisional Court's January 8, 2020 decision partially overturned a
previous ruling that had denied certification outright.
Apart from reaffirming the continued applicability of the "two-step
analysis" in the common issue inquiry, the Divisional Court's
decision in this appeal has some direct implications for medical
device manufacturers and distributors. Specifically, it:
* Underscores the importance of timely communication of
advisories issued by regulators in Canada and around the
world, to physicians and other users of the products; and
* Reinforces that design-defect allegations brought against
medical device manufacturers will be struck out where the
plaintiff has not identified a safer alternative design or
solution.
Overview of the Plaintiffs' Arguments
The plaintiffs' case changed over time, but in essence they
advanced two principal arguments at certification:
* The IVC filters were defectively designed (their design caused
them to be prone to malfunctions and injuries); and
* The defendants breached their duty to warn "learned
intermediaries" (i.e. the physicians who recommended or
prescribed the IVC filters) of the risks of using the IVC
filters.
The Initial Denial of Certification
The Certification Judge refused to certify the class proceeding
against the defendants, stating that:
* The pleading of alleged design defects failed to disclose a
reasonable cause of action (although the pleading of a duty
of warn was sufficient); and
* The plaintiffs failed to satisfy their onus of demonstrating
there were common issues of either defective design or a duty
to warn.
Defective design
In assessing whether the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, the
Certification Judge accepted the defendants' argument that the
pleadings merely concluded that there was a design defect in the
IVC filters, without identifying what the defect actually was.
The Certification Judge also found that the plaintiffs pleadings
failed to refer to the specific alternative design that would have
been safer and left the defendants to guess at what the plaintiffs
said was the better or safer design.
In the analysis of the common issue criterion, the Certification
Judge held that the plaintiffs must show "some basis in fact" for
the common issue, which requires showing that:
The proposed common issue actually exists; and
The proposed common issue can be answered in common across the
entire class.
The Certification Judge held that the plaintiffs failed to provide
evidence to support a design defect and could not satisfy the Court
that a specific defect in the IVC filters existed, which meant that
they could not succeed on "step one" of the two-step inquiry
referred to above. The Court noted that while the "some basis in
fact" standard to support the existence of the common issue is low,
it is not "subterranean".
Duty to warn
The Certification Judge found that the pleadings set out a cause of
action regarding the plaintiffs' breach of the duty to warn
allegations. However, he held that the plaintiffs had failed to
show that the proposed "duty to warn" common issues actually
existed. In particular, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how
the IVC filter warnings provided to physicians were inadequate,
whether by commission or omission of information.
The Certification Judge considered it significant that the
plaintiffs' expert admitted that he and his colleagues were well
aware of the particular risks related to IVC filters and did not
generally read instructions for use ("IFU") warnings from specific
manufacturers. The Certification Judge further noted that the
expert had not conducted an analysis of manufacturers' IFU warnings
and could not offer an opinion about what precisely was inadequate
about the defendants' warnings.
The Certification Judge concluded that, contrary to the plaintiffs'
assertions, the IFU did in fact warn about the risks of adverse
events, including death, as well as the risk that filters could
damage the vena cava and the risk of filter embolization.
Divisional Court Overturns in Part, Certifying on the Duty to Warn
Issue Only
On appeal, the Divisional Court:
* Upheld the ruling that the defective design allegations should
not proceed; and
* Overturned the Certification Judge and certified the case in
relation to the failure to warn
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the Certification Judge erred
in his application of the two-step test to determine whether there
were common issues. The plaintiffs argued that the two-step inquiry
(originally from Hollick v. Toronto (City)) no longer applies, and
that following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Pro-Sys
Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, there is only a one-step
test and no need to establish an "air of reality", "colourable
claim", or "arguable case" that the common issue exists.
The Divisional Court disagreed, noting that the weight of judicial
and appellate authority – including the Supreme Court of Canada
in its recent ruling in Pioneer Corp. v. Godfrey – is that the
two-part test is alive and well.
Upon confirming that the two-step still governs the commonality
inquiry, the Divisional Court applied it to the two proposed causes
of action.
Defective design
The Divisional Court agreed with the Certification Judge that the
plaintiffs had not properly pleaded the "defective design" cause of
action (i.e. because they failed to set out the particulars of the
defect or to show that a safer alternative was available to the
defendants). The Divisional Court agreed that the plaintiffs'
expert had no expertise in the design or manufacture of IVC filters
and was not qualified to give expert evidence on that subject.
Duty to warn
On the duty to warn allegations, the Divisional Court disagreed
with the Certification Judge and found that there was sufficient
evidence to establish a common issue with respect to the "duty to
warn" cause of action. The Divisional Court held that the
plaintiffs successfully met the "some basis in fact" standard
because they had presented evidence of several risk advisories
concerning the IVC filters issued in the U.K., U.S., and by Health
Canada, which had not been incorporated into the defendants' IFUs.
In their appearance before the Certification Judge, plaintiffs'
counsel had apparently not focused on the advisories. On appeal,
however, as the Divisional Court noted, there was a "change in
emphasis" and in the Court's view the existence of the advisories
was enough to "[meet] the low bar for finding that the duty to warn
is a common issue". In the result, the Divisional Court certified
the case for the alleged breach of the duty to warn.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]
COOK COUNTY, IL: Mays Sues Over Risks of Exposure to Coronavirus
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MAYS, Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons; and JUDIA JACKSON, as next friend of KENNETH
FOSTER, Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs-Petitioners v. THOMAS DART, Sheriff of Cook
County, Defendant-Respondent, Case No. 1:20-cv-02134 (N.D. Ill.,
April 3, 2020), is brought as a class action complaint
representative petition for habeas corpus on behalf of the class of
persons, who are detained in the Cook County Jail and are facing
unreasonable and unnecessary risks of exposure to the coronavirus,
possible serious respiratory illness, and death.
A rapidly escalating public health disaster is unfolding behind the
walls of the Cook County Jail, the Plaintiffs allege. In the 11
days since March 23, the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19, the
disease caused by a deadly coronavirus for which there is no
vaccine and no cure, has risen from one to at least 167. A total of
46 corrections staff are also known to have COVID-19. These numbers
will continue to rise dramatically because of the circumstances
alleged in this complaint, the Plaintiffs aver.
The Jail, which is operated under the supervision of Defendant
Thomas Dart, the Sheriff of Cook County, has failed in its
constitutional responsibility to the persons detained there to
provide reasonable protection against the further spread of this
deadly disease, the Plaintiffs contend. They note that social
distancing within the Jail is currently impossible because the Jail
is a crowded, congregate environment in which some 4,700
individuals are detained, in dual cell or dorm quarters. The
Plaintiffs insist that the Jail has repeatedly failed and continues
to fail to separate persons known to have been exposed to COVID-19
from other detainees.
The risks to these vulnerable people from remaining in the chaotic
and infectious environment that reigns within the Jail are
unacceptable, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs insist that
this group cannot, under current conditions, receive reasonable
medical care or protection from COVID-19 within the Jail; hence,
they must be released because, within the time frame that would be
necessary to improve safety, they would suffer irreparable harm and
are therefore jailed in violation of the Constitution of the United
States.
The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are detainees in Cook County Jail.
Defendant-Respondent Thomas J. Dart is the Sheriff of Cook County,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sarah Grady, Esq.
LOEVY & LOEVY
311 North Aberdeen St., 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60607
Phone: (312) 243-5900
Email: sarah@loevy.com
- and -
Vanessa del Valle, Esq.
RODERICK AND SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUST
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
375 East Chicago Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 503-5932
Email: vanessa.delvalle@law.northwestern.edu
- and -
Charles Gerstein, Esq.
Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202-894-6128
Email: charlie@civilrightscorps.org
CORE VALUES ROADSIDE: Linz FLSA Suit Moved from Ohio to Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMIAH LINZ, CORY DAVIS,
and Aaron Kaminsky, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CORE VALUES ROADSIDE SERVICE, LLC, and MARK
HYNDMAN, Case No. 1:19-cv-00529 (Filed July 2, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington (Spokane) on March 18, 2020.
The Eastern District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00107-SMJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants intentionally
misclassified themselves and all other members of the putative
Class as independent contractors. Pursuant to this intentional
misclassification scheme, the Defendants willfully refused to pay a
minimum wage; willfully refused to pay overtime; and reduced
employee wages through unlawful deductions in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs contend.
Core Values Roadside is a roadside assistance company providing
services such as tire changes, jump starts, fuel delivery, and
lockout services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
Stephen E. Imm, Esq.
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
Telephone: (513) 943-6659
Facsimile: (513) 943-6669
The Defendants are represented by:
Marnie C. Lambert, Esq.
LAMBERT LAW FIRM, LLC
4889 Sawmill Road
Columbus, OH 43235
Telephone: (614) 504-8803
Facsimile: (888) 386-3098
- and -
Jeremy Scott Hyndman, Esq.
BASALT LEGAL PLLC
6 1/2 N Second Avenue, Suite 200
Walla Walla, WA 99362
Telephone: (509) 529-0630
Facsimile: (509) 484-3183
E-mail: jeremy@jhyndman.com
DAYTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Law Firms File Class-Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Sweigart, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that law
firms based in Cleveland and Baltimore filed a lawsuit against
Dayton Children's Hospital and former hospital psychologist Greg
Ramey, who now faces a 145-count indictment related to allegation
of child pornography.
The lawsuit alleges Ramey was allowed to attend a sexual assault
forensic exam of a 2-year-old girl during a rape investigation in
summer 2019, and he was given photographs of the victim taken as
part of the rape kit to carry them to the forensic lab. The
lawsuit alleges his presence was not medically necessary.
The lawsuit is filed on behalf of the girl, identified as Jane Doe
No. 1 to protect her identity, and seeks class-action status on
behalf of other patients.
"It was a gross violation of our client's rights to have this
doctor in the room during a rape exam, and especially to have him
in possession of intimate photos of her," said attorney Philip
Federico.
Ramey's attorney Jon Paul Rion said the lawsuit is "frivolous,
unfounded, lacking in any relation to truth," and a "money grab."
Rion said investigators pored over Ramey's files and found no
connection between the images in question and his work for Dayton
Children's Hospital.
"If all the information were known to the people that filed this
suit, they wouldn't have brought it," Rion said.
Dayton Children's released a statement, saying that: "Our process
in caring for children who may be victims of sexual abuse is
safeguarded and well established," and that "the role which Greg
Ramey formerly held is not now nor has it ever been a part of
medical evaluations for suspected child sexual abuse." [GN]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Banks Seeks to Certify Class Suit v DOC
-------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit styled as EDWARD BANKS, et al., v. QUINCY
BOOTH, in his official capacity as Director of the District of
Columbia Department of Corrections, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00849-CKK (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. certifying a class consisting of:
"all persons confined or to be confined in D.C. Department
of Corrections (DOC) correctional facilities, including as
subclasses: (i) persons confined pre-trial, and (ii)
persons confined pursuant to a judgment of conviction";
and
2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class.
The Plaintiffs file this class action to challenge Defendants'
reckless and deliberately indifferent treatment of the people in
their custody and care at the D.C. Central Detention Facility and
the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility, when confronted with the
life-threatening COVID-19 pandemic. As alleged in the complaint,
the Defendants are utterly failing to take measures necessary to
prevent the Jail from becoming a death trap for those confined
there.
DCDC is a correctional agency responsible for the adult jails and
other adult correctional institutions in the District of Columbia,
the capital of the United States.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Marcus, Esq.
Jonathan Anderson, Esq.
Jenna Cobb, Esq.
PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
633 Indiana Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 824-2524
Facsimile: (202) 824-2525
E-mail: smarcus@pdsdc.org
- and -
Scott Michelman, Esq.
Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
Michael Perloff, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
915 15th Street NW, Second Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 457-0800
E-mail: smichelman@acludc.org
DOMINION ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the consolidated City of Warren lawsuit and Metzler
Lawsuit remains pending.
Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA Corporation (SCANA) was
completed on January 1, 2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA
Merger Agreement, which was entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA
Merger Approval Order (Final order) was issued by the South
Carolina Commission on December 21, 2018.
In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA,
Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors
of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County,
South Carolina (the City of Warren Lawsuit).
The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger
agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value
of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted
these actions.
Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin and/or rescind
the merger.
In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In June 2018, the case was
remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington
County.
Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was
consolidated with a similar appeal in the Metzler Lawsuit discussed
below.
In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the order remanding the case to state court.
The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina.
In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against
Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA and DESC in
the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina
(the Metzler Lawsuit).
The allegations made and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are
substantially similar to that described for the City of Warren
Lawsuit. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018.
In August 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of
Common Pleas in Richland County. Dominion Energy appealed the
decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, where the appeal was consolidated with the City of Warren
Lawsuit.
In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the order remanding the case to state court. The case is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina.
In September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the
City of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit.
In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against
certain former directors and executive officers of SCANA and DESC,
which stated substantially similar allegations to those in the City
of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit.
In November 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. This
case is pending.
Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.
DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Action vs. SCANA Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that SCANA Corporation
continues to defend an employment class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.
In August 2017, a case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on behalf of persons who were formerly
employed at the NND Project. In July 2018, the court certified this
case as a class action.
In February 2019, certain of these plaintiffs filed an additional
case, which case has been dismissed and the plaintiffs have joined
the case filed August 2017.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that SCANA, DESC, Fluor
Corporation and Fluor Enterprises, Inc. violated the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act in connection with the
decision to stop construction at the NND Project.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to provide
adequate advance written notice of their terminations of employment
and are seeking damages, which could be as much as $100 million for
100% of the NND Project.
In September 2018, a case was filed in the State Court of Common
Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina by Fluor Enterprises,
Inc. and Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc. against DESC and
Santee Cooper. The plaintiffs make claims for indemnification,
breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from, among
other things, the defendants' alleged failure and refusal to defend
and indemnify the Fluor defendants in the aforementioned case.
These cases are pending.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.
DOMINION ENERGY: Executes Settlement in RICO-Linked Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit related to the unlawful racketeering enterprise
in violation of The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO), have executed a preliminary settlement term sheet.
In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and
subsequently amended, against SCANA Corporation (SCANA), Dominion
Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and certain former executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina (the Glibowski Case).
The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCANA, DESC and the
individual defendants participated in an unlawful racketeering
enterprise in violation of RICO and conspired to violate RICO by
fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate unlawful proceeds.
The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement contemplates dismissal
of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case against DESC, SCANA and
their officers.
In August 2019, the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss.
In February 2020, the parties executed a preliminary settlement
term sheet relating to this matter as well as the Santee Cooper
Ratepayer Case and the Luquire Case. This case is pending.
Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.
DOMINION ENERGY: Preliminary Settlement Term Sheet Executed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit initiated by Santee Cooper ratepayers have
executed a preliminary settlement term sheet.
The proposed settlement is expected to be $520 million, of which
Dominion Energy's portion is $320 million.
In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee
Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, Dominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc. (DESC), Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and
Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in the State Court of
Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the Santee Cooper
Ratepayer Case). The allegations are substantially similar to those
in the DESC Ratepayer Case.
The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants may
not charge the purported class for reimbursement for past or future
costs of the V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 nuclear development project
under which DESC and Santee Cooper undertook to construct two
Westinghouse AP1000 Advanced Passive Safety Nuclear Units in
Jenkinsville, South Carolina (NND Project).
In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including
as additional named defendants, including certain then current and
former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA. In June 2018, Santee
Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original Jurisdiction with
the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
In December 2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
fourth amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC, which
was denied. In October 2019, Santee Cooper voluntarily consented to
stay its cross claims against DESC pending the outcome of the trial
of the underlying case.
In November 2019, DESC removed the case to the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina. In December 2019, the
plaintiffs and Santee Cooper filed a motion to remand the case to
state court. In January 2020, the case was remanded to state court.
In February 2020, the parties executed a preliminary settlement
term sheet relating to this matter as well as the Luquire Case and
the Glibowski Case.
The parties are currently negotiating a settlement agreement based
on the preliminary settlement term sheet that will be presented to
the court for preliminary approval. This case is pending.
In July 2019, a similar purported class action was filed by certain
Santee Cooper ratepayers against DESC, SCANA, Dominion Energy and
former directors and officers of SCANA in the State Court of Common
Pleas in Orangeburg, South Carolina (the Luquire Case).
In August 2019, DESC, SCANA and Dominion Energy were voluntarily
dismissed from the case. The claims are similar to the Santee
Cooper Ratepayer Case.
In February 2020, the parties executed a preliminary settlement
term sheet as described above relating to this matter as well as
the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case and the Glibowski Case. This case
is pending.
Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.
DOMINION ENERGY: Settlement Agreement Granted Preliminary Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina has granted preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement, pending a fairness hearing.
Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA Corporation (SCANA) was
completed on January 1, 2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA
Merger Agreement, which was entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA
Merger Approval Order (Final order) was issued by the South
Carolina Commission on December 21, 2018.
In September 2017, a purported class action was filed against SCANA
and certain former executive officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina. Subsequent
additional purported class actions were separately filed against
all or nearly all of these defendants.
In January 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina consolidated these suits, and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in March 2018. The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individually named
defendants are liable under Section 20(a) of the same act. In June
2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss.
In March 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions
to dismiss.
In December 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement
pursuant to which SCANA will pay $192.5 million, up to $32.5
million of which can be satisfied through the issuance of shares of
Dominion Energy common stock, subject to approval by the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.
In February 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement,
pending a fairness hearing.
Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.
EL BALCON DE LAS AMERICAS: Orellana FLSA Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as YOCELIN G. ORELLANA, and
other similarly situated employees v. EL BALCON DE LAS AMERICAS V,
INC., ALVARO TOBAR, DEBBIE TOBAR, LINA VELEZ, and ROBERTO VELEZ,
Case No. 502020CA000727XXXXMB (Filed Jan. 22, 2020), was removed
from the Florida Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and
for Palm Beach County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on March 20, 2020
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-80462-XXXX to the proceeding.
In her complaint, Ms. Orellana alleges that El Balcon, her former
employer, did not compensate her at a rate of at least 1.5 times
the regular rate at which she was employed for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants are doing business in the restaurant industry.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by
Ariadna Hernandez, Esq.
David M. Gobeo, Esq.
FORD & HARRISON, LLP
1450 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 325
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 345-7512
Facsimile: (561) 345-7501
E-mail: ahernandez@fordharrison.com
dgobeo@fordharrison.com
ELAVON INC: Fabricant Sues over Unsolicited Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELAVON, INC. and 7231911 CANADA INC. D/B/A
DIGITECH PAYMENTS, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02960 (C.D. Cal.,
March 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants contacted her cellular
telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system
without prior written express consent in an attempt to promote
Elavon's services, thus violating her rights of privacy.
Elavon, Inc. is a payment processor provider with its principal
place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
7231911 Canada Inc. is an independent corporation organized under
the laws of Quebec province in Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
ENESCO PROPERTIES: Violates California Labor Code, Mendez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Mendez, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
aggrieved employees v. Enesco Properties, LLC DBA Things
Remembered, a limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 20STCV13164 (Cal., Super., Los Angeles, Cty., April 3,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for failing to comply with
California Labor Code requirements due to erroneous and intentional
employment practices and policies.
The Defendants have had a consistent policy and/or practice of: (1)
failure to provide suitable seating; (2) failure to provide rest
breaks; (3) failure to provide timely, uninterrupted meal breaks;
(4) failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours
worked and work performed during meal periods and security
searches; (5) failure to timely pay all wages owed, including
willfully failing to pay wages due upon termination and failure to
pall all wages owed twice per month; and (6) failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, nonexempt employee of the
Defendant and worked as a sales lead.
Enesco Properties, LLC DBA Things Remembered, is a Delaware
corporation doing business in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 761-5484
Fax: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
18250 Ventura Boulevard
Tarzana, CA 91356
Phone: (818) 609-0807
Fax: (818) 609-0892
Email: Sahagii@aol.com
ENVISION PHYSICIAN: Paul Alleges Violations of TCPA and FCCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Paul, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ENVISION PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
0:20-cv-60692-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 3, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
The Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff in an attempt to
collect the Consumer Debt. On March 9, 2020, the Defendant was
notified in writing that: [1] the Plaintiff was represented by an
attorney with respect to the Consumer Debt; [2] the Plaintiff
revoked any consent the Defendant had to communicate with Plaintiff
directly; [3] the Defendant was not to contact the Plaintiff
directly; and [4] any correspondence should be sent to the
Plaintiff's attorney. On March 14, 2020, despite knowing that the
Plaintiff was represented by an attorney with respect to the
Consumer Debt and that the Defendant was not permitted to contact
the Plaintiff directly, eth Defendant sent the Plaintiff a second
letter in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt.
Beginning in January 2020, the Defendant began sending text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number, without the
Plaintiff's prior express consent in an attempt to collect the
Consumer Debt. At no point in time did the Plaintiff provide the
Defendant with the Plaintiff's express written consent to be
contacted by text message using an ATDS. The Defendant's
unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff actual harm. Despite the
Plaintiff telling the Defendant to "STOP," the Defendant continued,
and to this day, continues, to send text messages to the Plaintiff,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and is a resident of Broward
County, Florida.
The Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of
soliciting consumer debts for collection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-907-1136
Fax: 855-529-9540
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bidwell Sues over Unsolicited Voice Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID BIDWELL, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10622 (D. Mass., March 27, 2020) arises from
Defendant's alleged repeated violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant has an illegal practice of
placing repeated prerecorded and artificial voice calls to cellular
telephone numbers belonging to persons with whom it has no business
relationship, including Plaintiff.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant's numbers 215-302-4880 and
800-282-2881 repeatedly left voice messages containing prerecorded
or artificial voices on his cellular telephone number 413-xxx-9653
on several separate occasions, including on January 14, 2020 and
January 17, 2020. Plaintiff never provided prior express consent to
Defendant to contact him.
Despite Plaintiff's request to cease Defendant from placing those
calls, the calls persisted which had caused Plaintiff a significant
amount of anger, anxiety, frustration, and annoyance; and directly
interfered with Plaintiff's right to peacefully enjoy a service
that Plaintiff paid for.
Express Scripts, Inc. offers pharmacy benefit management services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Tel: (203)653-2250
Fax: (203)653-3424
Website: https://www.lemberglaw.com
FIRMFINDER LLC: Gibson Sues Over Robocalls
------------------------------------------
ALBERT GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRMFINDER LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00668-JJH (N.D. Ohio, March 30, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant initiated calls to his
cellular phone number using an automatic telephone dialing system
on or about October 21, 2019, November 6, 2019, January 29, 2020
and January 30, 2020 in an attempt to promote its products and
services without prior written express consent. The Defendant's
unsolicited marketing calls caused actual harm to the Plaintiff,
including invasion of his privacy, aggravation, and annoyance.
Firmfinder LLC is an operator of full service digital marketing
agency for law firms with its principal place of business located
at 267 E. State Route 73, Springboro, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
FIRST DATA: Faces Floyd et al. Suit over Unwanted Marketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS FLOYD and TERRY FABRICANT, Plaintiffs v. FIRST DATA MERCHANT
SERVICES LLC; SAM'S CLUB MERCHANT SERVICES, NATIONAL PAYMENT
SYSTEMS LLC; and NATIONAL PAYMENT SYSTEMS OR, LLC d/b/a/ ONE
CONNECT PROCESSING, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02162 (N.D. Cal.,
March 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs received calls from the
Defendants using an automatic telephone dialing system or
prerecorded messages as part of the Defendants' telemarketing
strategy. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants placed the
robocalls without getting prior express written consent from them.
First Data Merchant Services LLC is a merchant services provider
specializing in payment processing solutions, with its principal
place of business located at 5565 Glenridge Connector NE, Suite
2000, Atlanta, Georgia.
Sam's Club Merchant Services is a subsidiary company of First Data
Merchant Services LLC based in Atlanta, Georgia.
National Payment Systems LLC is an electronic payment solutions
provider with its principal place of business at 1920 Thomas
Avenue, Suite 610, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
National Payment Systems OR, LLC is a company that specializes in
providing payment solutions with its principal place of business at
1050 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon. It is also doing
business as One Connect Processing. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
BRODERICK LAW P.C.
99 High Street, Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 738-7080
Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
- and -
Andrew W. Heidarpour, Esq.
HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM PPC
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 190-318
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 234-2727
E-mail: aheidarpour@hlfirm.com
- and -
Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. McCUE
1 South Avenue, Suite 3
Natick, MA 01760
Telephone: (508) 655-1415
Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
FIRST HORIZON: Capital Bank Financial Corp. Faces Searles Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation ("FHN") said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that Capital Bank Financial Corp. (CBF) has been named as a
defendant in a class action suit entitled, Searles v. DeMartini et
al, No. 2020-0136, related to CBF's merger with FHN in 2017.
On February 26, 2020, a former shareholder of Capital Bank
Financial Corp. ("CBF") filed a putative class action suit, Searles
v. DeMartini et al, No. 2020-0136 (Del. Chancery), against certain
former directors, officers, and shareholders of CBF, alleging,
among other things, that defendants breached certain fiduciary
duties in connection with CBF's merger with FHN in 2017.
Plaintiff claims unspecified damages related to the merger
consideration and opportunity loss.
FHN is unable to estimate an RPL range for this matter due to
significant uncertainties regarding: whether a class will be
certified and, if so, the composition of the class; the amount of
potential damages that might be awarded, if any; of any such
damages amount, the amount that FHN would be obliged to indemnify;
the availability of applicable insurance; and the outcome of
discovery, which has not yet begun.
First Horizon National Corporation ("FHN") began as a community
bank chartered in 1864 and as of June 30, 2017, was one of the 40
largest publicly traded banking organizations in the United States
in terms of asset size. The company is based in Memphis,
Tennessee.
FIRST HORIZON: Settlement in GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Already Paid
------------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation ("FHN") said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the settlement in the class action suit entitled, In re GSE
Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-01704-JSR, has been already
paid.
FHN was one of multiple defendants in a consolidated putative class
action suit: In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:19-cv-01704-JSR (U.S. District Court S.D.N.Y.).
The plaintiffs claim that defendants conspired to fix secondary
market prices of government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE") bonds from
2009 through 2015.
During the third quarter, FHN reached a class settlement with the
plaintiffs, subject to court approval, without admitting liability.
Though still subject to court approval, the settlement was paid
before year-end and therefore is no longer reflected in established
liabilities.
First Horizon National Corporation ("FHN") began as a community
bank chartered in 1864 and as of June 30, 2017, was one of the 40
largest publicly traded banking organizations in the United States
in terms of asset size. The company is based in Memphis,
Tennessee.
FIRST TRANSIT: Faces Silva Class Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Silva, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. FIRST TRANSIT, INC., and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-02285 (N.D. Cal., April
3, 2020), is brought to redress common policies and practices by
the Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Defendant implements common policies and practices by which
assigns many of its Paratransit Drivers a split-shift schedule made
up of a short morning shift and a short afternoon shift separated
by one to four hours and, during the break between shifts, requires
Paratransit Drivers to return to their depot and perform
work-related activities. Since the Defendant's Paratransit Drivers
are "off-the-clock" during split-shift breaks, the Defendant does
not pay wages for the work these employees perform during
split-shift breaks. The Defendant's split-shift practices violate
the FLSA, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Silva worked as a full time, hourly Paratransit Driver at
the First Transit depot in Oakland, California.
First Transit is one of the largest private sector providers of
public transit management and contracting in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Phone: (775) 284-1500
Email: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
- and –
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 233-1550
Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
- and –
David J. Cohen, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 873-4836
Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com
FORD MOTOR: Fiesta, Focus Suit Settlement Could Cost $500 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Detroit Free Press reports that a federal judge approved a Ford
Motor Co. class-action settlement that will result in the
repurchase of thousands of defective Ford Fiesta and Focus vehicles
for up to $22,000 apiece, according to lawyers who crafted the
agreement.
"You could see where this settlement could end up costing Ford
hundreds of millions of dollars, potentially $500 million," said
Michael Kirkpatrick, a lawyer at the nonprofit Public Citizen
consumer advocacy group, who successfully argued against both Ford
and the class-action law firm for re-review of the case in 2019 to
get a better deal for consumers.
Ford customers claimed in legal filings their 2012-16 Focus and
2011-16 Fiesta compact cars were built with transmissions prone to
"shuddering, slipping, bucking, jerking, hesitation while changing
gears, premature internal wear, delays in downshifting and, in some
cases, sudden or delayed acceleration."
In response to the ruling, Ford spokesman Said Deep said in a
prepared statement, "We are pleased with the court's ruling and
look forward to the final implementation of the settlement."
Nearly 2 million owners and former owners stand to be affected by
the settlement, which also includes a minimum $30 million in cash
payments from Ford to customers that are separate from the buyback
program. At least 1.5 million of the vehicles remain on the road
today, according to U.S. vehicle registration data.
The $30 million is set aside for smaller payments of anything from
$20 to $250 for customers who may not qualify for a buyback.
Kirkpatrick said. He emphasized the settlement agreement requires
Ford to spend all $30 million, so after everyone applies for what
may seem like a trivial amount, if any remains unclaimed, those
consumers who applied may receive a second payment check because
"the residue" of the $30 million must be distributed.
So, one month after a brutal 2019 earnings report, Ford is now
looking at a new liability of more than half a billion dollars
related to Ford Fiesta and Focus vehicles. [GN]
FORTY SEVEN INC: Post Balks at Acquisition by Gilead Sciences
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH POST, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FORTY SEVEN, INC., KRISTINE BALL, JEFFREY BIRD, IAN
CLARK, DENNIS HENNER, RAVINDRA MAJETI, MARK MCCAMISH, IRVING
WEISSMAN, GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., and TORO MERGER SUB, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00377-UNA (D. Del., March 17, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with a solicitation statement stemming from a proposed
transaction pursuant to which Forty Seven will be acquired by
Gilead.
On March 1, 2020, Forty Seven's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Gilead.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced
a tender offer to purchase all of Forty Seven's outstanding common
stock for $95.50 per share in cash. The Tender Offer was set to
expire on April 6, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.
The Plaintiff contends that the Solicitation Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated
Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Solicitation Statement. The
Solicitation Statement fails to disclose, for each set of
projections: (i) all line items used to calculate EBIT; and (ii) a
reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.
The omissions in the Solicitation Statement are material in that a
reasonable shareholder will consider them important in deciding
whether to tender their shares in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff adds that a
reasonable investor will view a full and accurate disclosure as
significantly altering the total mix of information made available.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, the
Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm.
The Plaintiff is the owner of Forty Seven common stock.
Forty Seven is a clinical-stage immuno-oncology company that is
developing therapies targeting cancer immune evasion pathways and
specific cell targeting approaches based on technology licensed
from Stanford University. The individual Defendants are officers
and directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
E-mail: rm@maniskas.com
FUNKO INC: Faces Nahas Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Nahas, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FUNKO, INC., BRIAN MARIOTTI, RUSSELL NICKEL, and
JENNIFER FALL JUNG, Case No. 2:20-cv-03130 (C.D. Cal., April 3,
2020), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Funko securities between October 31, 2019,
and March 5, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to pursue claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
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 Plaintiff
alleges. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) Funko was experiencing lower than expected
sales; (ii) consequently, Funko was reasonably likely to incur a
writedown for slower moving inventory; and (iii) as a result, the
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On February 5, 2020, after the market closed, Funko issued a press
release announcing its preliminary fourth quarter 2019 financial
results. Therein, Funko stated that "net sales are expected to be
approximately $214 million, a decrease of 8% compared to $233
million in the fourth quarter of 2018." The Company also disclosed
a $16.8 million writedown to "dispose of slower moving inventory to
increase operational capacity." On this news, Funko's stock price
fell $6.20 per share, or 40%, to close at $9.29 per share on
February 6, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.
On March 5, 2020, after the market closed, Funko issued a press
release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2019 financial
results. Therein, Funko affirmed that net sales for fourth quarter
had decreased 4% year-over-year to $213.6 million due to, among
other things, "softness at retail during the holiday season which
led to a decrease in orders." On this news, Funko's stock price
fell $0.32 per share, or over 4%, to close at $6.92 per share on
March 6, 2020, thereby, injuring investors further.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Funko securities during the Class Period.
Funko is a pop culture consumer products company that creates
figures, plush, accessories, apparel, and homewares regarding
movies, TV shows, videogames, musicians, and sports teams.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 405-7190
Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
GENERAL REVENUE: Court Denies Class Certification in "Thompson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RACHEL M. THOMPSON, On behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. GENERAL REVENUE CORP.
Case No. 2:16-cv-00734-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge George
C. Smith entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification of:
CLASS 1 (As to the Issues of Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act Liability and Statutory Damages):
"all persons to whom Defendant mailed at least one written
communication dated July 27, 2014 to the present; to collect
a non-tax debt owed to the State of Ohio and/or its related
entities, which debt was referred to Defendant for collection
by the Ohio Attorney General (OAG) pursuant to a Third Party
Collection Vendor Agreement; and in which Defendant sought to
recover "collection costs" pursuant to (former) Ohio Revised
Code sections 109.081 and 131.02. Specifically excepted from
this Class are all persons to whom Defendant mailed written
communications relating to any accounts placed with Defendant
for collection of debts incurred after April 5, 2017, and/or
for all accounts placed with Defendant for debts that were
not incurred for personal, family or household purposes"; and
CLASS 2 (As to the Issue of Disgorgement) or Payment
Reapplication of "Collection Costs" Paid:
"all persons to whom Defendant mailed at least one written
communication dated July 27, 2014 to the present; to collect
a non-tax debt owed to the State of Ohio and/or its related
entities, which debt was referred to Defendant for collection
by the Ohio Attorney General ("OAG") pursuant to a Third
Party Collection Vendor Agreement; and in which Defendant
sought to recover "collection costs" pursuant to (former)
Ohio Revised Code sections 109.081 and 131.02; and after
which resulted in any payment from such persons of any funds
applied to "collection costs"." Specifically excepted from
this Class are all persons to whom Defendant mailed written
communications relating to any accounts placed with Defendant
for collection of debts incurred after April 5, 2017, and/or
for all accounts placed with Defendant for debts that were
not incurred for personal, family or household purposes."
The Court said, "the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Having found that Plaintiff failed to satisfy all four requirements
found in [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(a), the Court need not undergo an
analysis of Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements."
GRC is a United States debt-recovery organization that specializes
in the recovery of defaulted student loans and consumer loans.[CC]
GERON CORP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that it filed a class
action seeking to represent purchasers of Geron Corporation
(NASDAQ:GERN) securities during the period between March 19, 2018
and September 26, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed
in the District of New Jersey and is captioned Pfeifer v. Geron
Corp., et al., No. 20-cv-02424.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Geron securities during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Geron securities class
action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the Geron securities class action lawsuit. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Geron securities class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Geron securities
class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Geron
securities class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later
than 60 days from January 23, 2020. If you wish to discuss the
Geron securities class action lawsuit or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel,
Brian E. Cochran
Robbins Geller
Tel: (800) 449-4900 or
(619) 231-1058
E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-geron-corporation-class-action-lawsuit.html.
The Geron securities class action lawsuit charges Geron and certain
of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Geron is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused
on the development of a telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat, for the
treatment of hematologic myeloid malignancies under a collaboration
agreement with Janssen Biotech Inc. ("Janssen"). During the Class
Period, Janssen was conducting a Phase 2 trial of imetelstat, known
as the IMbark study, for the treatment of myelofibrosis, an
uncommon type of bone marrow cancer that disrupts the normal
production of blood cells, under the supervision of a Joint
Steering Committee ("JSC") consisting of both Geron and Janssen
employees. The JSC conducted an internal non-public review of the
IMbark study results in March 2018.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
misled investors regarding imetelstat and the results from the
IMbark study. Specifically, defendants concealed material
information and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the March 2018 JSC
internal study review and earlier end-point data, which had been
gathered since at least April 2017, had demonstrated that the
IMbark study failed to achieve its primary endpoints related to
reductions in spleen volume and Total Symptom Score, or TSS; (b)
the secondary outcome measures and survival rates defendants chose
to selectively publicize did not overcome the failure of the IMbark
study to achieve its primary endpoints; (c) as a result, there was
a significantly increased risk and high likelihood that Janssen
would decline to continue its collaboration with Geron on
imetelstat development; and (d) as a result, defendants' positive
statements regarding imetelstat and the IMbark study during the
Class Period were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. As a result of this information being withheld from the
market, Geron securities traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, with the Company's stock price reaching a
high of more than $6 per share.
On March 27, 2018, Adam Feuerstein, a veteran biotech journalist,
published an article questioning the results of the IMbark study
and calling on defendants to disclose the study's primary endpoint
data in order to help investors evaluate defendants' claims. On
this news, the price of Geron stock declined 29% over two trading
days.
Then on September 27, 2018, defendants reported the full results of
the IMbark study. In order for the study to be considered
successful, it required at least a 35% reduction in spleen volume
in patients taking the drug. The actual result was 10%. Similarly,
the study required patients taking the drug to show at least a 50%
reduction in TSS. The actual reduction was 32%. As such, the IMbark
study, by its own terms, was a failure. In addition, defendants
announced that Janssen had decided to terminate its partnership
with Geron. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Geron
stock declined 63%, or $3.92 per share, to close at $2.31 per share
on September 27, 2018.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
[GN]
GOLDEN VALLEY: Faces Suit over Unlawful Medical Data Storage
------------------------------------------------------------
S.F., A.M., M.C., J.C., and G.H., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. GOLDEN VALLEY HEALTH
CENTERS, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02154-NC (N.D. Cal., March 30,
2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and negligence.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated patients receiving and/or who received medical
care from the Defendant, allege that Defendant negligently created,
maintained, preserved, and stored Plaintiffs' and the Class
members' confidential medical information on an email account
without obtaining prior written authorization, which led to a data
breach wherein patients' personal information had been compromised
by an unknown, unauthorized, third party as determined by the
Defendant on March 3, 2020.
Golden Valley Health Centers is a domestic non-profit healthcare
provider with principal place of business at 737 W. Childs Avenue,
Merced, California. The hospital offers services for family
medicine, pediatrics, women's health, internal medicine, dental
care, podiatry, and optometry. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (866) 219-3343
Facsimile: (866) 219-8344
E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
GRAND CARIBBEAN: Bonkuri Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
MADHUKAR BONKURI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND CARIBBEAN CRUISES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-60638-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 26, 2020)
is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged unlawful practice of placing calls using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to the cellular and landline telephones of
consumers nationwide without their prior express consent in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff has received numerous calls
from Defendant on March 14, 18 & 19, 2020 without his prior express
consent. The calls were a robotic-sounding recording which
purported to be representative from "Support First on behalf of
Grand Caribbean Cruises." Allegedly, Defendant and/or its agents
call consumers using prerecorded voice, purporting to give away
"free cruises" in the hopes of upselling consumers on other
vacation packages.
The complaint asserts that Defendant intentionally and repeatedly
violated the TCPA by placing those unsolicited calls to consumers
as well as invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiff and members of
the putative class.
Plaintiff and all members of the proposed Classes seek injunctive
relief prohibiting such violations of the TCPA by Defendant in the
future, monetary and statutory damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
Grand Caribbean Cruises, Inc. offers cruises to the Bahamas, Fort
Lauderdale, Orlando, Las Vegas, Palm Beach, and Puerto Vallarta.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
Miami, FL 33133-5402
Tel: (305)330-5512
Fax: (212)989-9163
Email: scott@bursor.com
- and –
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (646)837-7126
Fax: (212)989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greif, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended January 31, 2020, that the company, together with
Container Life Cycle Management (CLCM), continues to defend a
putative class action suit in Wisconsin concerning one of CLCM's
Milwaukee reconditioning facilities.
On November 8, 2017, the Company, CLCM and other parties were named
as defendants in a punitive class action lawsuit filed in Wisconsin
state court concerning one of CLCM's Milwaukee reconditioning
facilities.
The plaintiffs are alleging that odors from this facility have
invaded their property and are interfering with the use and
enjoyment of their property and causing damage to the value of
their property. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages, along with their legal fees.
The Company and CLCM are vigorously defending themselves in this
lawsuit.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Greif, Inc. produces and sells industrial packaging products and
services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Rigid
Industrial Packaging & Services; Paper Packaging & Services;
Flexible Products & Services; and Land Management. The company was
formerly known as Greif Bros. Corporation and changed its name
toGreif, Inc. in 2001. Greif, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is
headquartered in Delaware, Ohio.
HAGYARD EQUINE: Swearingen Class-Action Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Eric Mitchell, writing for Blood Horse, reports that a class-action
suit filed more than a year ago by owner/trainer Tom Swearingen,
who claimed damages caused by misdated radiographs for sale horses
in the Keeneland repository, has been dismissed.
In a March 5 hearing before Fayette (Ky.) Circuit Court Judge Julie
Goodman, defendants in the lawsuit made their case for dismissal
based on a Feb. 11 deposition with Swearingen during which he
admitted many claims he made in the suit were not true.
Named in the lawsuit were four veterinarians -- Drs. Robert Hunt,
Michael Hore, Michael Spirito, and Dwayne Rodgerson, all partners
with Hagyard Equine Medical Institute -- who self-reported to the
Kentucky Board of Veterinary Examiners that they modified the dates
on radiographs submitted to the Keeneland repository.
Radiographs offered at sales through a repository provide the
benefit of central information, eliminating the need to run
numerous radiographs and endoscopic exams of horses. Keeneland
provides the information for free. Keeneland's repository rules for
the September Yearling Sale require submitted radiographs to be
taken within 21 days of the date a horse is to be auctioned. For
its mixed sales in November and January, the requirement is within
15 days of when a horse is to be sold.
Swearingen, as a representative of a class of buyers at Keeneland
since 2006, argued he suffered financial losses on horses he either
would not have purchased or that he would not have paid as much for
had he known the radiographs were not taken on the date identified,
meaning the horse might have an issue that is not revealed.
Goodman sided with the defendants' counsel that argued Swearingen's
complaint not only included "multiple false statements" but that,
most significantly, "he suffered no damages" and that in his most
recent deposition admitted "he was embarrassed as to the
allegations."
"I am very pleased for Dr. Hunt that this action has been
dismissed," said attorney Tom Miller, with Miller, Griffin & Marks.
"It is abundantly clear that Mr. Swearingen never had a valid
claim, which the judge fully understood after having watched the
video of his deposition. We intend to pursue a claim to recover
damages, including attorney fees, from Mr. Swearingen and his
attorneys." [GN]
HDR GLOBAL TRADING: Faces Williams Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Williams and William Zhang, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HDR GLOBAL TRADING LIMITED, ABS GLOBAL
TRADING LIMITED, ARTHUR HAYES, BEN DELO, and SAMUEL REED, Case No.
1:20-cv-02805 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2020), seeks to recover, pursuant
to the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the consideration paid for securities and commodities futures
that BitMEX sold.
BitMEX is a P2P crypto-products trading platform. BitMEX and the
mobile apps issued under BMEX are wholly owned and operated by HDR
Global Trading Limited, a Republic of Seychelles incorporated
entity or its relevant authorized affiliates.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class investors, who
purchased securities and commodities futures that BitMEX sold
through its exchange since July 1, 2017, and a subclass of
investors, who purchased digital-tokens futures that, without
registering under applicable federal and state securities laws as
an exchange or broker-dealer and without a registration statement
in effect, BitMEX sold through its exchange since July 1, 2017.
BitMEX exclusively trades derivative products based on
cryptocurrencies, in particular bitcoin and ether. In doing so,
however, BitMEX acts like a casino with loaded dice, manipulating
both its systems and the market its customers use for its own
substantial financial gain. Implementing its business approach,
BitMEX deliberately based the price of its futures on spot-market
exchanges that have limited liquidity and are thus relatively easy
to manipulate. BitMEX would then engage in manipulative trading on
those exchanges to change the price of bitcoin or ether. Even if
only temporary, these price changes would then affect the prices of
the futures offered on BitMEX in a way that benefitted BitMEX by
allowing it to make margin calls and liquidate its highly leveraged
traders.
In addition to offering derivative products on commodities such as
bitcoin and ether, BitMEX also operates as an unregistered
securities exchange that offers security futures products on
certain digital tokens, including derivative products that
reference the tokens EOS and SNT (together, the "Tokens"). Other
tokens are more speculative and are referred to as "security
tokens," and, like a traditional security, essentially represent
one's investment in a project.
According to the complaint, the scheme worked as follows: working
to capitalize on the enthusiasm for cryptocurrencies like bitcoin,
an Issuer would announce a revolutionary digital token. This token
would typically be billed as "better," "faster," "cheaper," "more
connected," "more trustworthy," and "more secure." The Issuer would
then sell some of its tokens in an initial coin offering ("ICO") to
a small group of investors and then turn to exchanges to list the
new token, at which point these exchanges would undertake its own
efforts to promote sales, and to solicit and encourage purchases,
by a wide universe of investors. The Issuers would thereby raise
hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars from purchasers of
the tokens.
The Plaintiffs allege that BitMEX wrongfully engaged in millions of
transactions--including the solicitation, offer, and sale of
securities--by selling its derivative products. Because the Tokens
were unregistered securities, the derivatives BitMEX sold
referencing the Tokens were themselves securities that needed to be
registered. BitMEX did not register these derivatives as
securities, and did not itself register with the SEC as an exchange
or broker-dealer. As a result, investors were not informed of the
significant risks inherent in these investments, as federal and
state securities laws require, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased EOS and TRX derivative products on BitMEX.
BitMEX is one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world,
with a daily trading volume that regularly surpassed $3 billion in
January 2020.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
Joshua Margolin, Esq.
Mitchell Nobel, Esq.
SELENDY & GAY, PLLC
1290 Sixth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10104
Email: pselendy@selendygay.com
jgoldstein@selendygay.com
jmargolin@selendygay.com
mnobel@selendygay.com
- and -
Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
Edward Normand, Esq.
Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
Joseph M. Delich, Esq.
Richard R. Cipolla, Esq.
ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Email: kyle@rcfllp.com
tnormand@rcfllp.com
vel@rcfllp.com
jdelich@rcfllp.com
rcipolla@rcfllp.com
HPF CHRISTOPHER: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HPF Christopher Inc.
The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. HPF Christopher
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02820 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
H.P.F. CHRISTOPHER is a jewelry and home goods boutique located in
the West Village of New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
HUMANE SOCIETY: Vieten Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Vieten, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00899 (D.D.C., April 3, 2020), is brought for damages
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in sending text
messages to the Plaintiff and others on their cellular telephones,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
In August of 2018, the Plaintiff made a donation to either the
Defendant or a local Humane Society chapter. In February 2019, the
Plaintiff began receiving automated text messages from the
Defendant. These texts were sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff
at least once a week. After two weeks of receiving these
unsolicited text messages, the Plaintiff began replying to the
Defendant text messages, requesting that the Defendant stop sending
her text messages.
Unfortunately, the Defendant did not honor the Plaintiff's requests
and persisted in sending unsolicited text messages. Thus, in
October 2019, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant via email and
telephone to put a stop to the unsolicited text messages. Despite
multiple assurances from representatives of the Defendant that she
would no longer be contacted, the text messages continue unabated
and the Defendant now ignores the Plaintiff's calls, says the
complaint.
Ms. Vieten is a citizen of the state of Florida.
HSUS is a non-profit corporation incorporated in the State of
Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 389-0600
Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com
jbourne@pswlaw.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
Joshua R. Levine, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
HUNT GUILLOT: Leonard Sues to Recover OT Pay for Field Schedulers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY LEONARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUNT GUILLOT & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00194-JWD-EWD (M.D. La., April 1, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff
and all others similarly-situated workers overtime compensation for
all hours worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Leonard was employed by the Defendant as field scheduler from
May 2017 to December 2017 and then again from January 2018 to the
present.
Hunt Guillot & Associates, LLC is a staffing firm that provides
recruitment services to the oil and gas industry with its principal
place of business at 3867 Plaza Tower Dr., 1st Floor, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Galvin Kennedy, Esq.
KENNEDY LAW FIRM LLP
2925 Richmond Ave., Suite 1200
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 425-6445
Facsimile: (713) 888-535-9271
E-mail: Galvin@KennedyAttorney.com
- and -
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
Amanda E. McGowen, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
amcgowen@bohrerbrady.com
IC SYSTEM: Faces Lezark FDCPA Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY LEZARK v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00403-DSC
(W.D. Pa., March 20, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated seeking damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs against the Defendant for its violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The case concerns a past-due medical obligation (the Account) that
is allegedly owed to Tri-State Ortho and Sports Medicine Inc. The
Account arose out of a transaction primarily for personal, family,
or household purposes.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant regularly sends letters
to Pennsylvania consumers as part of these collection activities.
He asserts that the Defendant's letters routinely state that the
Defendant may refer a medical account to an attorney although the
Defendant's medical provider client(s) never pursue legal action.
These letters, similar to the letter Plaintiff received, harmed
Pennsylvania consumers and violated their legal rights, the
Plaintiff adds.
The Defendant's sole business is collecting debts. The Defendant
regularly collects or attempts to collect debts owed or due or
asserted to be owed or due to another.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
BCJ Law LLC
186 42nd Street, PO Box 40127
Pittsburgh, PA 15201
Telephone: (412) 223-5740
Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
E-mail: kevina@bcjlawyer.com
- and -
Eugene D. Frank, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE D. FRANK, P.C.
3202 McKnight East Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15237
Telephone: (412) 366-4276
Facsimile: (412) 366-4305
E-mail: efrank@edf-law.com
ICBC: Hit With $900M Class Action Over 'Illegal' Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for The Province, reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit has been filed against the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia ("ICBC") and the B.C. government
alleging they engaged in an illegal scheme to divert hundreds of
millions of dollars, resulting in losses to accident victims and
driving up insurance rates for B.C. drivers.
The lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court argues that provincial laws
make the government, through the Medical Services Plan (MSP) - and
not ICBC - responsible for paying the costs of visits to physicians
by victims of motor vehicle accidents.
But ICBC has instead been for decades reimbursing the government,
through the MSP, for the services of medical practitioners payable
as a result of ICBC claims, says the lawsuit.
The total amount of the remittances from 1988 to 2018 has been
$899,724,536 with amounts prior to 1988 and since April 2018 only
known to the defendants, it says.
"The effect for the government of receiving the remittances was to
raid ICBC's budget for its own benefit and, in doing so, increase
ICBC's operating costs," says the writ.
"The remittances have been paid by ICBC to the government pursuant
to an agreement the text of which has never been published.
Particulars of the agreement are within the knowledge of the
defendants. The intended beneficiary of the agreement was the
government."
There are two identified classes in the lawsuit, the "accident
victim class" and the "ratepayer class".
Brayden Methot, the representative plaintiff for the accident
victim class, was a passenger in a vehicle travelling north from
Kamloops on June 9, 2014 when it crossed the centreline and struck
an oncoming vehicle. The Williams Lake man was left a
quadriplegic.
Methot, who was 24 at the time of the accident and is now 29, says
he received the limit of $160,000 in accident benefits, but
believes he would have received more benefits from ICBC had the
corporation not unlawfully paid the remittances.
"I just feel like I've been taken advantage of when it came to a
big injury like this. Money shouldn't be my main concern, it should
be recovery."
Robert Rorison, the representative plaintiff for the ratepayer
class, says he has bought insurance through ICBC since 1973, with
the premiums increasing substantially during that time.
The rate increases are in part due to ICBC's payment of the
remittances, says the lawsuit.
Scott Stanley, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an email that
what happened to Methot was "especially appalling."
"The items he needed to buy with his accident benefits were not
luxury items - these were items he needed to remain alive."
Stanley noted that the past few days has seen the NDP and B.C.
Liberals "publicly quibbling" about removing money from ICBC and
added that it was a legitimate debate.
"However, neither of them are talking about this scheme to remove
money from ICBC, which we say is illegal, and which both
governments participated in," he said. "We say this is a situation
where government has knowingly not followed the very laws it
passed. People have already paid taxes for their health care and
should not be taxed a second time."
The plaintiffs are seeking a number of things, including having the
case certified as a class-action lawsuit and a declaration that the
increased insurance rates amount to an unconstitutional tax.
They also want a monetary award for Rorison and the other ratepayer
class members, and damages for Methot and the other accident claim
class members for a sum equal to the amounts withheld from them.
The lawsuit comes shortly after the NDP government announced
sweeping changes to ICBC, ushering in a no-fault scheme aimed at
curbing skyrocketing costs. The Trial Lawyers Association of B.C.
is opposed to the measures brought in by Attorney-General David
Eby.
Eby, who is responsible for the ICBC portfolio, indicated that it
wasn't unusual for ICBC as an insurance company to be asked to pay
for medical costs to care for someone insured in a car crash when
there is negligence and fault assigned.
If the medical costs were caused by a dangerous driver, why would
the Medical Services Plan pay for those costs, he wondered.
Eby said he "struggled" to see the illegality in what was going on,
but added any litigation was serious, especially coming from the
Vancouver law firm that is involved in the case.
ICBC said in an email that it will be reviewing the lawsuit before
determining next steps and, as it is before the courts, will not be
making any further statements. [GN]
IMPERIAL DADE: Jordan FCRA Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIN JORDAN, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IMPERIAL
DADE INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a DADE PAPER & BAG, LLC, Case
No. 2020-CA-1280-DIV-B (Filed Feb. 11, 2020), was removed from the
Florida Circuit Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for
Hillsborough County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on March 18, 2020.
The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-00627-CEH-AAS to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970
purporting to arise out of the background check forms the Defendant
allegedly provided to the Plaintiff and putative class members.
Imperial Dade operates as a holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiaries, provides food service disposables and janitorial
supplies and equipment. Imperial Dade serves hospitality, grocery,
healthcare, sports and entertainment, and education sectors
worldwide.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Nancy A. Johnson, Esq.
Courtney B. Wilson, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
111 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1750
Orlando, FL 32801-2366
Telephone: (407) 393-2900
Facsimile: (407) 393-2929
E-mail: najohnson@littler.com
cwilson@littler.com
kljackson@littler.com
IMPINJ INC: Suit by Plymouth Retirement System Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled,
Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al., is still
stayed.
On January 31, 2019, a class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York for the County of New York against the company, its
chief executive officer, chief operating officer, former chief
financial officer, members of its board of directors and the
underwriters of our July 2016 initial public stock offering, or
IPO, and December 2016 secondary public offering, or SPO.
Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et
al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
the company's stock pursuant to or traceable to its IPO and SPO,
alleges that the company made false or misleading statements in the
registration statements and prospectuses in those offerings
concerning demand for its products and inventory in violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.
On April 9, 2019, the New York Supreme Court entered an order
staying the action and requiring the parties to update the court
every 90 days as to the status of the pending federal consolidated
securities class action.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.
INVESTMENT LIMITED: Figueroa Seeks OT Pay for Maintenance Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PABLO Z. FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. INVESTMENTS MANAGEMENT I, LLC, d/b/a
INVESTMENT LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 9:20-cv-80539 (S.D. Fla.,
March 30, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
all other similarly-situated maintenance workers overtime pay at
the rate of time and one-half their regular rate for every hour
that they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a maintenance
employee at Island Shores Apartments, located at 1600 Island Shore
Drive, Green Acres, Florida from September 2015 to March 3, 2020.
Investments Management I, LLC is a Palm Beach County, Florida-based
property leasing, management, and maintenance company that provides
services to commercial accounts. It is also doing business as
Investment Limited. [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
JUUL LABS: Gabbard Product Liability Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CONSTANCE GRACE GABBARD, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS,
INC. and ALTRIA GROUP, INC., Case No. 20-CI-00710 (Filed Feb. 21,
2020), was removed from the Kentucky Circuit Court, Fayette County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on
March 17, 2020.
The Eastern District of Kentucky Cour Clerk assignef Case No.
5:20-cv-00098-KKC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that she is addicted to nicotine, and that
such addiction "caused a permanent brain injury to her developing
brain" and respiratory problems leading to hospitalization. In her
complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for
negligence; breach of implied warranty; strict product
liability--failure to warn and design defect; fraudulent
concealment; fraudulent misrepresentation; violation of Kentucky
Consumer Protection Act; Unjust Enrichment; violation of California
Consumer Legal Remedies act; violation of California False
Advertising Law; violation of California Unfair Competition Law;
and civil conspiracy.
Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company which spun
off from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul e-cigarette,
which packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges.
Altria Group is an American corporation and one of the world's
largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and related
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian M. Vines, Esq.
HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
325 W. Main Street, Suite 210
Lexington, KY 40507
The Defendants are represented by:
F. Maximilian Czernin, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
201 E. Fourth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 361-1206
E-mail: max.czernin@squirepb.com
- and -
Kirk Ogrosky, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001-3743
Telephone: (202) 942-5330
E-mail: Kirk.Ogrosky@arnoldporter.com
KNIGHT ADJUSTMENT: Holliday Sues in D. Utah Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knight Adjustment
Bureau. The case is styled as Peggy Holliday, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Knight Adjustment Bureau,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00037-DBB (D. Utah, April 3, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Knight Adjustment Bureau is a collection agency located in Salt
Lake City, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: (602) 900-1288
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
- and -
Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON LAW GROUP
290 25th St., Ste. 102
Ogden, UT 84401
Phone: (801) 392-9324
Email: therondmorrison@gmail.com
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Rahmanan Suit Over Cybersecurity Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arifur Rahmanan, individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00654 (C.D.
Cal., April 3, 2020), arises out of a massive cybersecurity breach
affecting 5.2 million consumers, who entrusted their highly
sensitive personal and confidential information to the Defendant.
Marriott announced the data breach on March 31, 2020, and sent
e-mails to customers affected by the security debacle, informing
them that information such as names, addresses, phone numbers, and
e-mail addresses--all information that is solid gold for identity
thieves--were accessed by unauthorized persons. This catastrophic
and inexcusable mishap was unmistakably the result of Marriott's
complete failure to exercise reasonable care and implement adequate
security systems, institute the most basic cybersecurity policies
and procedures, and adequately train employees and franchisees on
such policies and procedures.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Marriott accountable for its utter
disregard for the privacy and sanctity of its customer's data--data
that Marriott does not hesitate to take from customers for
marketing analytics to upsell and increase revenues and to even
share with third-parties, while making $20 Billion in revenue.
Fortunately for consumers, the legislature passed the California
Consumer Privacy Act so that companies may finally learn their
lesson when it comes to securing consumer data and being honest
with them about what they are doing with that data. The Plaintiff
and the class members intend to vindicate those rights in this
case, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Marriott Bonvoy member and has spent money on
many occasions to stay at Marriott properties.
Marriott International is a multinational, diversified hospitality
company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and
related lodging facilities, including 30 brands with more than
7,000 properties across 130 countries and territories
globally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ahmed Ibrahim, Esq.
AI LAW, PLC
4343 Von Karman Ave., Suite 250
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: 949-260-1240
Fax: 949-260-1280
Email: aibrahim@ailawfirm.com
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Settlement Reached in Cantrell Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a
settlement has been reached in the class action suit entitled,
Cantrell v. Lutech Resources, Inc., Case No. 4:17-CV-2679 (S.D.
Tex.).
A former employee of one of the company's subsidiaries commenced
the Cantrell class action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards
Act on or about September 5, 2017, alleging that he and his fellow
class members were not paid one and one half times their normal
hourly wage rates for hours worked that exceeded 40 hours in a work
week.
The company's subsidiary has yet to answer the allegations in the
complaint, as agreed by the parties, in order to allow mediation to
take place. The first mediation session commenced in October 2018,
and a settlement has been reached between the parties.
McDermott said, "We do not believe a risk of material loss is
probable related to this matter, and, accordingly, our reserves for
this matter were not significant as of December 31, 2019."
McDermott International, Inc., a corporation incorporated under the
laws of the Republic of Panama in 1959, is a fully integrated
provider of engineering, procurement, construction and installation
("EPCI") and technology solutions to the energy industry. The
company designs and build end-to-end infrastructure and technology
solutions to transport and transform oil and gas into a variety of
products. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
MCMILLAN-HENDRYX INC: Faces Gilmore FLSA Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edmond Trent Gilmore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MCMILLAN-HENDRYX INCORPORATED (DBA AMERICAN SEALS WEST,
INC.); GARY HENDRYX, JUSTIN HENDRYX, DEB C. HALL, and DOES 1
through 20, Case No. 1:20-cv-00483-NONE-JDP (E.D. Cal., April 3,
2020), is brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act over unpaid wages and premiums.
The core violations the Plaintiff alleges against the Defendants
are: (1) failure to pay contractual wages; (2) failure to pay
minimum wage; (3) failure to pay all overtime wages owed; (4)
failure to provide timely first meal periods, and failure to
provide uninterrupted 30 minute meal periods, and/or provide
appropriate compensation in lieu thereof; (5) failure to provide
timely, complete, rest periods, and/or provide appropriate
compensation in lieu thereof; (6) failure to provide reimbursement
for necessary business expenditures; (7) failure to keep accurate
employment records and wage statements; (8) failure to pay all
wages owed upon termination; (9) failure to make payroll records
available, and (10) failure to make personnel records available
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a master lapper and
soft foreman in Ceres, California, in Stanislaus County.
McMillan-Hendryx Incorporated, a California corporation,
specializes in making and repairing mechanical seals, and making
gaskets, pumps, valves, and other related products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Leanna M. Sac, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Phone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
Email: StanM@TheMMLAwFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLAwFirm.com
LMSac@TheMMLAwFirm.com
MGP INGREDIENTS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded MGP
Ingredients, Inc.. Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court.
Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
MGP Ingredients, Inc. (MGPI)
MGPI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 27,
2019 - February 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : April 28, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mgp-ingredients-inc-loss-form?prid=5593&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, MGP
Ingredients, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) MGP had not
completed any significant sales of its four-year-old aged whiskey
inventory; (b) the Company had been unable to sell its aged whiskey
at the price premium represented to investors; (c) a glut of aged
whiskey inventory and shifts in consumer behavior had lowered the
value of the Company's aged whiskey inventory and materially
impaired its ability to negotiate significant sales on favorable
contract terms; and (d) in light of the foregoing, the Company's
FY19 financial forecast lacked a reasonable basis and was
materially misleading.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.
Contact:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Web site: http://www.zlk.com/
[GN]
MID-MINNESOTA MANAGEMENT: Faces Myong FDCPA Suit in W.D. Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mid-Minnesota
Management Services Inc. The case is styled as Hwang Myong,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Mid-Minnesota Management Services Inc., doing business as:
Collection Resources, Case No. 3:20-cv-05320 (W.D. Wash., April 3,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Mid Minnesota Management Services (Financial Services) is a
financial advisory firm in St Cloud, Minnesota.[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
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
MID-MINNESOTA MANAGEMENT: Myong Files FDCPA Suit in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mid-Minnesota
Management Services Inc. The case is styled as Hwang Myong,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Mid-Minnesota Management Services Inc., doing business as:
Collection Resources, Case No. 2:20-cv-00523-JCC (W.D. Wash., April
3, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Mid Minnesota Management Services (Financial Services) is a
financial advisory firm in St. Cloud, Minnesota.[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
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Romero Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARLON ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 5:20-cv-00559 (C.D. Cal.,
March 18, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the federal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices by seeking to collect an alleged debt.
The Plaintiff alleges that beginning in December 2018, the
Defendants contacted him on his cellular telephone number ending in
-4906, in an effort to collect an alleged debt owed from him. The
Defendants called him from telephone numbers confirmed to belong to
the Defendants, including without limitation (888) 840-5998, (888)
405-9988. In their efforts to collect the alleged debt owed from
him, the Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system to
place its daily calls to him seeking to collect an alleged debt
owed.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint for damages, injunctive relief,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from
the illegal actions of the Defendants.
Midland Credit is debt collection company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: 323-306-4234
Facsimile: 866-633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
MONFRIC: Faces Jenkins Class Suit Over Termination of Employment
----------------------------------------------------------------
TASHA JENKINS, an individual v. MONFRIC, a California corporation,
dba MONFRIC, INC.; DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV11045 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 17, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated regarding the
Defendants' termination of her employment on March 23, 2018, after
she complained about their failure to pay her for all hours worked
and to reimburse for business expenses.
The Defendants first hired the Plaintiff on October 1, 2016, to
work in California at Maple Park Apartments in Glendale,
California, as a residential apartment manager.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants compensated her at an
hourly rate of pay at the time of hire, and the Defendants informed
her that she would be compensated at an hourly rate. The
Defendants, however, did not provide her or their other hourly
employees with duty free meal or rest periods. The Defendants also
failed to pay premium wages for missed duty free meal and rest
periods, she adds.
Monfric is a management consulting company based in San Diego,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David G. Spivak, Esq.
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 582-3086
Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Asks Supreme Court to Review Sunday Ticket
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The NFL and DirecTV have petitioned for a Supreme Court review of a
class-action lawsuit brought up against the satellite company's
Sunday Ticket deal, according to Michael A. Fletcher of ESPN.
The deal offers a chance for fans to pay $293 per season for access
to every NFL game, but consumers are required to purchase a bundle
for every game instead of potentially their favorite out-of-town
team.
Lawyers initially argued that this violates federal antitrust laws,
preventing NFL teams from competing against each other for a larger
market share.
The initial class-action suit also claimed it forces customers to
"pay more for games than they want."
In addition to the high cost for individuals, restaurants and bars
are required to pay based on capacity, which led to costs of $2,300
and $120,000 per season, per Fletcher.
The case reached the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which
reopened the lawsuit last August.
"If the NFL were to lose, I don't think it is necessarily so
dramatic in terms of the way you will watch NFL on satellite or
cable," sports economist at the University of Michigan Stefan
Szymanski said of the case. "But it should be good news for
consumers because they should be paying less [for out-of-market
games]."
Lawyers for the NFL and DirecTV have argued games are part of a
"joint venture" between the teams and the league, protecting it
from any antitrust statutes.
The NFL and DirecTV signed an eight-year, $12 billion deal to
showcase out-of-market games in 2014.
Under the current system, networks are allowed to broadcast local
teams and a limited number of national games, but never more than
three on a Sunday afternoon. The lawsuit could allow more
flexibility for national broadcasts. [GN]
NEW LEAF NATURALS: Allred Sues over Unsolicited Text Message
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KRISTI LEE ALLRED, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW LEAF NATURALS,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00651-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal., March 26,
2020) arises from Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of sending
text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system to
telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express
consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff has received telemarketing
text messages in her cellular telephone number ending in -2428 from
a telephone number owned and operated by Defendant. Plaintiff never
provided any prior express written consent for Defendant to send
her autodialed or prerecorded text messages that were impersonal
and generic.
The complaint asserts that Defendant not only invaded the personal
privacy of Plaintiff and members of the putative Class, but also
intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA.
Plaintiff and members of the putative Class seek injunctive relief,
treble and statutory damages for each and every text message, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
New Leaf Naturals is a hemp cannabinoid (CBD) oil company which
offers a line of cannabinoid wellness products that promote a
healthy body and mind. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Tel: (925)300-4455
Fax: (925)407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and –
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (646)837-7150
Fax: (212)989-9163
Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
OKLAHOMA DOC: Beard Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit styled as ALLISON BEARD, et al. v. SCOTT
CROW, Interim Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Case
No. 5:19-cv-00310-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all individuals in the custody of the Oklahoma Department
of Corrections"; and
2. setting an emergency hearing.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify the class of
Plaintiffs because of overcrowding and inadequate staffing not only
because of violent conditions but combined with the COVID-19
pandemic.
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections is an agency of the state of
Oklahoma. ODOC is responsible for the administration of the state
prison system. It has its headquarters in Oklahoma City, across the
street from the headquarters of the Oklahoma Department of Public
Safety.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiffs are:
Ronald "Skip" Kelly, Esq.
Two Broadway Executive Park
205 NW 63rd, Suite 150
Oklahoma City, OK 73116
Telephone: (405) 235-1976
Facsimile: (405) 286-6316
- and -
Debra K. Hampton, esq.
HAMPTON LAW OFFICE, PLLC
3126 S. Blvd., No. 304
Edmond, OK 73013
Telephone: (405) 250-0966
Facsimile: (866) 251-4898
E-mail: hamptonlaw@cox.net
ONTRAK VEHICLE: Calzado FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RUDY CALZADO, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v. ONTRAK VEHICLE
TRANSPORTERS, INC., and FELIX OSVALDO ALVAREZ, Case No.
2020-000558-CA-01, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court,
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March
18, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-21197-XXXX to the proceeding.
The complaint assert claims against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ontrak Vehicle provides transportation services.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin D. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN D. SMITH, P.A.
6099 Stirling Road, Suite 101
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 797-9626
Facsimile: (954) 239-3956
E-mail: kevin@kdsmithlaw.com
PACIFIC CHOICE: Coe Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY COE, an individual on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PACIFIC
CHOICE SEAFOOD COMPANY, an Oregon corporation; PACIFIC SEAFOOD, a
business entity of unknown form; RESOURCE STAFFING GROUP, INC., an
Oregon corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
34-2020-00274708 (Filed Feb. 23, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
March 17, 2020.
The Plaintiff sues under the California Labor Code for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, reporting time pay, unreimbursed
business expenses, statutory and civil penalties, and attorney's
fees.
Pacific Choice processes and distributes seafood products. The
Company offers fresh seafood, frozen seafood, meat and poultry
products, and recipes.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Steven A. Micheli, Esq.
Dan M. Forman, Esq.
CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 612-6300
E-mail: smicheli@cdflaborlaw.com
dforman@cdflaborlaw.com
PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Baumann Sues over Unsolicited Phone Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARLENE BAUMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03289 (D.N.J.,
March 26, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged unlawful practice of telemarketing
campaign in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Defendants engaged in an aggressive
telemarketing campaign in an attempt to sell more auto warranties
by placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers that
feature an artificial and/or prerecorded voice. Plaintiff has
received a prerecorded telemarketing call from Defendant in his
cellphone number ending in 8597 on December 4, 2018 without
providing prior express consent to receive such call.
The complaint asserts that Defendant has caused Plaintiff and
members of the Class actual harm by making those unsolicited calls,
such as aggravation, nuisance, invasions of privacy, and more.
Plaintiff and members of the Class seek an injunction requiring
Defendant to stop all telemarketing calls, actual monetary damages,
treble damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Palmer Administrative Services, Inc. offers auto protection plans
and provides excelling customer services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Arons, Esq.
ARONS & ARONS, LLC
76 South Orange Ave., Suite 100
South Orange, NJ 07079
Tel: (973)762-0795
Fax: (973)762-0279
Emails: ja@aronslaw.net
- and –
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CL 80210
Tel: (720)213-0675
Fax: (303)927-0809
Emails: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com
PARAGON COIN: Holland Suit Seeks to Certify Class in IPO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JON HOLLAND and ASTLEY DAVY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
PARAGON COIN, INC., JESSICA VERSTEEG, EGOR LAVROV, BLACK RABBIT
HOLDINGS, EUGENE "CHUCK" BOGORAD, ALEX EMELICHEV, GARETH RHODES,
VADYM KURYLOVICH, AND JAYCEON TERRELL TAYLOR A/K/A/ "THE GAME", the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on May 8, 2020 for an order:
1. certifying a class consisting of:
"all persons or entities who purchased PRG Tokens directly
from Defendants (defined below) during Paragon's
"official" initial coin offering from approximately August
15, 2017 through October 15, 2017, inclusive who have
been, are being, and/or will be harmed by Defendants'
actions thereby." Excluded from the Class are: (i)
Defendants; (ii) the Individual Defendants' immediate
family members; (iii) any person who was an officer or
director of the Company during the Class Period; (iv) any
firm, trust, corporation, or other entity in which a
Defendant has or had a controlling interest; and (v) the
legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors in-
interest, or assigns of any such excluded person or
entity.
2. appointing Jon Holland and Astley Davy as Class
Representatives; and
3. appointing Levi & Korsinsky as Class Counsel.
Paragon is a Cannabis-focused company that completed an initial
coin offering.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
388 Market Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 373-1671
Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com
rmah@zlk.com
denright@zlk.com
ek@zlk.com
PARK HOTELS & RESORTS: Fails to Remit Service Fees, Morana Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Morana, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PARK HOTELS & RESORTS, INC. d/b/a HILTON WORLDWIDE
HOLDINGS, INC., HLT NY WALDORF LLC, HILTON DOMESTIC OPERATING CO.
INC., and WALDORF ASTORIA MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-02797
(S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2020), challenges the Defendants' alleged
policies and practices of failing to remit all service fee
surcharges to the Plaintiff and proposed class members.
The lawsuit is also brought to challenge the Defendants' policies
and practices of: (1) unjust enrichment for failure to remit the
entirety of the service fee surcharges to non-managerial service
workers; (2) failing to provide Plaintiff and Class members
accurate, itemized wage statements as required by New York Labor
Law; and (3) failing to provide accurate and proper written notice
as required by New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff is subject to the Defendants' "gratuity and
administrative charge" and "service fee" policies and practices.
This case implicates the Defendants' longstanding policies and
practices, which fail to properly compensate non-exempt service
workers mandatory surcharges remitted to them as wages. As a
result, throughout the relevant time period, the Plaintiff is
denied all gratuity payments owed to them.
The Defendants impose a mandatory "gratuity and administrative
charge" on the total cost of banquet services, including the sale
of food and beverages during those banquets, to their customers,
but fail to distribute the total proceeds of those surcharges to
non-managerial service employees as required by New York law. This
conduct violates New York Labor Law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a banquet worker by the Defendants at
the Waldorf Astoria in New York from 1999 to March 2017.
The Defendants each individually and/or jointly own, operate,
and/or manage hotels, restaurants, and resorts throughout the
United States, including in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nestico, Esq.
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
Charlotte, NC 28210
Phone: (510) 740-2946
Fax: (415) 421-7105
Email: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
PAYPRO USA: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Small Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEDRIAN SMALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PAYPRO, USA, INC. D/B/A PAYPRO ADMINISTRATORS,
California Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-00553 (C.D. Cal., March
17, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, by failing
to provide the Plaintiff with a COBRA notice that complies with the
law.
The Plaintiff contends that despite having access to the Department
of Labor's Model COBRA form, the Defendant chose not to use the
model form which contains all information required by law in a
single notice written in a manner calculated to be understood by
the average plan participant. She adds that the deficient COBRA
notice at issue in this lawsuit both confused her, and caused her
economic injuries in the form of lost health insurance and unpaid
medical bills, as well as informational injuries.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Loot Crate Inc. She was
covered based on her health plan through Loot Crate Inc. She was,
thus, a participant/beneficiary in the Plan before her termination
on August 9, 2019.
The Defendant, the plan administrator of the Loot Crate Inc. group
health plan, has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide
participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as
prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health
coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by
the statute, says the complaint.
The Plan provides medical benefits to employees and their
beneficiaries, and is an employee welfare benefit plan within the
meaning of 21 U.S.C. section 1002(1) and a group health plan within
the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 1167(1).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Litvak, Esq.
DAPEER ROSENBLIT LITVAK, LLP
11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 477-5575
Facsimile: (310) 477-7090
E-mail: wlitvak@drllaw.com
- and -
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail:gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
12 227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 283-3814
E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
PHILLIPS 66: Hinkle Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Utility Inspectors
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TROY HINKLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-00022 (W.D. Tex., April 1, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all other
similarly-situated utility inspectors overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a utility inspector in
and around Wink, Texas and Sonora, Texas from April 2019 until
October 2019.
Phillips 66 Company is a multinational energy company headquartered
in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PIONEER NATURAL: Kennedy Sues Over Unpaid OT, Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00086-DC (W.D. Tex., April 1, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay the
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated workers overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a single
workweek and its misclassification of them as independent
contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Kennedy was employed by the Defendant as a construction manager
from approximately September 2018 through April 2019.
Pioneer Natural Resources Company is an independent oil and gas
exploration and production company headquartered in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
QUALCOMM INC: 9th Circuit Calls Timeout in Giant Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Freeman, writing for San Diego Tribune, reports that a U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel has paused further action in
Qualcomm's efforts to shrink the size of one of the largest
consumer class-action lawsuits ever filed.
The three-judge panel, which heard oral arguments in December,
postponed the case March 4, 2020. The judges are considering
whether they should go forward now or delay a decision until a
separate panel of judges rules on whether Qualcomm violated
anti-monopoly laws in a parallel case.
The judges hearing the class-action case requested both sides
submit written arguments by March 20 on whether the appeal should
be postponed. The court moved without Qualcomm or lawyers for
smartphone buyers requesting a delay.
The San Diego company aims to overturn a lower court's decision to
allow a class of 250 million smartphone buyers nationwide to sue,
claiming they were overcharged because of Qualcomm's illegally
inflated patent license fees.
Qualcomm contends such a large, diverse and unwieldy class of
consumers would make it impossible for the company to exercise its
due process rights to challenge whether consumers were harmed.
Billions in damages could be at stake. The lawsuit covers 1.2
billion cellphone sales over eight years.
The class-action is centered on U.S. District Court Lucy Koh's
ruling in May that Qualcomm violated anti-monopoly laws in a case
brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
Qualcomm contends Koh made legal errors in the FTC case. It is
appealing Koh's decision, which is being heard by a separate 9th
Circuit panel. Oral arguments were held in February. A decision is
pending.
In the class-action, 9th Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson appeared
sympathetic to Qualcomm's arguments about the class size. He
questioned lawyers about whether the lawsuit would still hold up if
Qualcomm won a reversal of the FTC antitrust case. Qualcomm's
attorneys believed an antitrust reversal would derail the
class-action suit. [GN]
QUANTSTAMP INC: Williams Sues to Recover Consideration for Tokens
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. QUANTSTAMP, INC., RICHARD MA, and STEVEN STEWART, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02813 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2020), is brought on behalf
of investors, who purchased Quantstamp Network Tokens in the United
States, to recover the consideration paid for the QSP tokens,
together with interest thereon, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.
Various digital assets can reside on blockchains, including
cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, as well as
so-called "smart contracts" that operate under a set of
predetermined conditions agreed to by users. Certain of these
digital tokens are classified as "utility tokens" and are
associated with particular projects. Their primary purpose is to
allow the holder to use or access the associated project. Other
tokens are more speculative and are referred to as "security
tokens," and like a traditional security essentially represent
one's investment in a project. Although they take value from the
startup behind the project, they do not give the holder ownership
in that startup. Rather, investors purchase these tokens with the
idea that their value will increase as the network in which the
token can be used is expanded based upon the managerial efforts of
the issuer and those developing the project. Because such "security
tokens" are properly classified as securities under federal and
state law, the issuers of these tokens, including Quantstamp, were
required to file registration statements with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission. Quantstamp, however, failed to do so. By
selling these unregistered tokens to investors, Quantstamp reaped
millions of dollars in profits, the Plaintiff alleges.
According to the complaint, the scheme worked as follows: First,
Quantstamp issued a "whitepaper" to investors that described in
highly technical terms the supposed utility to which QSP would be
placed. The Quantstamp whitepaper, however, omitted the disclosures
that securities laws and the SEC have long deemed essential to
investor protections in initial public offerings, including use of
"plain English" to describe the offering; a required list of key
risk factors; a description of key information and incentives
concerning management; warnings about relying on forward- looking
statements; an explanation of how the proceeds from the offering
would be used; and a standardized format that investors could
readily follow. Without these critical disclosures, investors in
QSP tokens were, thus, left to fend for themselves--precisely the
opposite of what the securities laws require.
Because Quantstamp did not disclose at issuance that QSP are
securities, investors reasonably understood that QSP were not
subject, at issuance, to United States securities laws, the
Plaintiff contends. In addition, Quantstamp further confirmed to
investors at issuance that QSP was not a security by failing to
file a registration statement for it with the SEC. Although
Quantstamp described the QSP tokens as something other than
securities, they were securities. This was not clear to a
reasonable investor at purchase, however, and would not have been
reasonably apparent until, at the earliest, April 3, 2019, when the
SEC released a detailed "Framework" to analyze digital assets,
indicating that QSP and other similar digital tokens are
"investment contracts" and therefore securities under Section 2 of
the Securities Act of 1933, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover the
consideration paid for the QSP tokens with interest thereon at the
legal rate, or the equivalent in monetary damages plus interest at
the legal rate from the date of purchase, says the complaint.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of the Class
brings claims to recover the consideration paid for the QSP tokens,
together with interest thereon, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiff has purchased QSP, an unregistered security.
Quantstamp is a blockchain-focused software development company
that develops blockchain security solutions and is developing and
promoting the Quantstamp blockchain protocol.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
Spencer Gottlieb, Esq.
Michelle Foxman, Esq.
SELENDY & GAY, PLLC
1290 Sixth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10104
Email: pselendy@selendygay.com
jgoldstein@selendygay.com
sgottlieb@selendygay.com
mfoxman@selendygay.com
- and -
Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
Edward Normand, Esq.
Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
Alex T. Potter, Esq.
Richard R. Cipolla, Esq.
ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Email: kyle@rcfllp.com
tnormand@rcfllp.com
vel@rcfllp.com
apotter@rcfllp.com
RE-BODY LLC: Maietta Sues Over Safslim Belly-Fat Reduction Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Maietta, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. RE-BODY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00691 (C.D. Cal., April 3, 2020), challenges the
Defendant's misleading belly-fat reduction claims relating to its
dietary supplement product, Safslim.
The Defendant markets "Safslim," a dietary supplement that
Defendant falsely claims is an effective aid in "belly fat"
reduction, despite the fact that the Product's "clinically studied
ingredient," high-linoleic safflower oil ("HLA" or "safflower oil")
does not provide such benefits, the Plaintiff contends. She asserts
that she read and relied upon the Defendant's claims when
purchasing the Product and was damaged as a result.
The Plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising
Law, compelling the Defendant to (a) cease marketing the Product
using the misleading and unlawful tactics complained of herein, (b)
destroy all misleading, deceptive, and unlawful materials, (c)
conduct a corrective advertising campaign, (d) restore the amounts
by which it has been unjustly enriched, and (e) pay restitution
damages and punitive damages, as allowed by law.
Plaintiff Paula Maietta is a citizen of the State of California and
resides in La Quinta, California, who purchased the Product.
The Defendant develops, manufactures, promotes, markets,
distributes, and/or sells the Product across the United States,
including to consumers in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
mike@consumersadvocates.com
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Metzler Sues Over March 2020 OS Outages
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Metzler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and
ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02286 (N.D. Cal., April
3, 2020), arises from outages of the Defendant's operating systems,
which resulted in customers unable to place trade orders.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities, who
were unable to transact with their Robinhood accounts, including
(among other things) to exercise or hedge expiring options, short
positions, or limit orders, during the period of March 2, 2020,
through March 9, 2020, for class-wide damages and other equitable
relief.
The Defendant Robinhood entities are an online brokerage firm
founded in 2013 that provide users with the ability to trade
stocks, funds, and options commission-free. Robinhood's customers
"trade in real time" through the firm's Web site, app or call-in
center.
On March 2, 2020, March 3, 2020, and March 9, 2020, Robinhood
experienced total outages of its operating systems, preventing
customers from making securities trades through its Web site, app,
or call center. Consequently, customers could not place trade
orders during the outages.
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. The Plaintiff and other Robinhood customers
suffered financial losses because they could not execute
transactions through the Robinhood trading platform during this
time, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Bryan Metzler is a citizen and resident of Riverton,
Utah.
Robinhood Securities acts as a clearing broker and clears trades
introduced by its affiliate Defendant Robinhood Financial.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Andre Mura, Esq.
Steve Lopez, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com
amm@classlawgroup.com
sal@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Scott Silver, Esq.
SILVER LAW GROUP
11780 W. Sample Road
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Phone: (954) 755-4799
Facsimile: (954) 755-4684
Email: ssilver@silverlaw.com
SEALED AIR: UA Local 13 & Employers Group Insurance Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by UA Local 13 &
Employers Group Insurance Fund.
On November 1, 2019, purported Company stockholder UA Local 13 &
Employers Group Insurance Fund filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's tax
deduction in connection with its 2014 settlement for
asbestos-related liabilities related to the Cryovac acquisition and
the Company's subsequent hiring of Ernst & Young LLP as its
independent auditors.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between November 5, 2014 and August 6, 2018.
The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, including interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Sealed Air Corporation provides food safety and security, and
product protection solutions worldwide. It was founded in 1960 and
is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
SNOW JOE LLC: Stewart Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
April Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Snow Joe, LLC, a New York Company, Case No.
4:20-cv-00145-RM (D. Ariz., April 5, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant to stop it from violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending unsolicited autodialed text messages to
consumers, and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief
for all persons injured by its conduct.
According to the complaint, the Defendant markets its products to
consumers using unsolicited, autodialed text messages. The
Plaintiff has never provided her consent to the Defendant to send
her text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system or to
otherwise contact her.
The Defendant's unsolicited text was a nuisance that aggravated the
Plaintiff, wasted her time, invaded her privacy, diminished the
value of the cellular services she paid for, caused her to
temporarily lose the use and enjoyment of her phone, and caused
wear and tear to her phone's data, memory, software, hardware, and
battery components, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Stewart is a Tucson, Arizona resident.
Snow Joe is a distributor of snow blowers, lawn mowers, and other
tools.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan Brown, Esq.
BROWN PATENT LAW
15100 N 78th Way Suite 203
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Phone: 602-529-3474
Email: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com
- and -
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. (SPR) between October 31, 2019
and January 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased Spirit securities and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit Spirit Shareholder
Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll-free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company lacked effective internal controls over
financial reporting; (2) the Company did not comply with its
established accounting principles related to potential contingent
liabilities; and (3) as a result, defendants statements about its
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On January 30, 2020, before the market opened, the Company issued a
press release announcing that Spirit had determined that it did not
comply with its accounting procedures and that Garcia and Gilson
had resigned. On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.56 per
share or approximately 4% on unusually high volume to close at
$65.08 per share on January 30, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 10, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Spirit securities and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/spiritaerosystemsholdingsinc-spr-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-249/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll-free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com/
Tel: (877) 779-1414
E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
[GN]
ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL: McCune Wright Arevalo Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP (MWA), an Inland Empire-based firm
specializing in matters including consumer class actions and
catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death, filed a class
action lawsuit against St. Joseph Hospital Orange, St. Joseph
Health, and Paratus Partners LLP (the St. Joseph Defendants) on
March 4, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The complaint seeks to represent all
Medicare recipients against whom the St. Joseph Defendants have
asserted liens beyond Medicare reimbursement rates.
When healthcare providers contract with government insurance
programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, they collect only the
agreed-upon reimbursements from those programs. "Balance billing,"
or collecting the contractual reimbursement and then billing the
patient for the remainder of what the hospital decides to charge
for its services, is illegal. But this is what the St. Joseph
Defendants have done to the plaintiff and what is believed to be
many similarly vulnerable California citizens.
In the case described in the complaint, the plaintiff was struck by
an automobile while crossing the street. She suffered through an
intense recovery period, and now faces years of additional
therapeutic recovery. The accident has had a severe impact on her
ability to care for herself and has unavoidably increased her cost
of living. Nevertheless, St. Joseph retained third-party agent
Paratus Partners LLC, an aggressive debt collector, to recover
additional funds from the plaintiff above and beyond the
agreed-upon Medicare reimbursement rates. After discovering that
the plaintiff had entered into a settlement with the driver who
injured her, the St. Joseph's Defendants sent letters to the
plaintiff claiming that she owed the St. Joseph Defendants nearly
$200,000. In cases such as these, the St. Joseph's Defendants know
or should know they are not entitled to obtain additional funds
above and beyond Medicare reimbursement, but the complaint alleges
that they assert these liens in bad faith to force the plaintiff
(and others like the plaintiff) to settle the improper liens.
"Healthcare already comes to many as an economic hardship, but
especially so when unforeseen accidents occur," commented Founding
Partner Richard McCune, who leads the firm's class actions
practice. "Victims end up in the emergency room to be treated for
life-threatening injuries, then undergo prolonged hospital stays,
all through no fault of their own. We cannot allow health providers
to exploit these situations for their own economic benefit beyond
their contracted or statutory rights. We intend to help our client
stop this misuse of lien rights in personal injury settlements and
protect her and other vulnerable individuals from similar abuses."
The largest consumer firm based in California's Inland Empire
region, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP has a deep history of success
for its clients, including a $203 million verdict against Wells
Fargo Bank, recovery of over $1 billion for its clients, and over
100 contingency cases with recovery of $1 million or more. MWA
maintains offices in Ontario, San Bernardino, Palm Desert, and
Irvine, California, and supports its national practice with offices
in Illinois and New Jersey. For over 30 years, MWA has successfully
represented clients in serious cases. Visit mccunewright.com for
more information.
Contact:
Devin Texeira
McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP
Tel: (909) 233-7787
E-mail: dct@mccunewright.com
[GN]
STAMPS.COM INC: Bid to Dismiss Karinski Securities Suit Narrowed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stamps.com Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss
filed in the class action suit entitled, Karinski v. Stamps.com,
Inc. et al, Case 2:19-cv-01828, has been granted in part and denied
in part.
On February 28, 2019 and March 13, 2019, two putative class action
complaints were filed against the company in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division.
One of the two putative class actions was dismissed without
prejudice, and in the other case, styled as Karinski v. Stamps.com,
Inc. et al, Case 2:19-cv-01828, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.
Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint in August 2019,
purportedly on behalf of all those who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, Stamps.com common stock between May 3, 2017 and May 8,
2019, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on public disclosures that were purportedly rendered
misleading based on certain uses of reseller rates.
The company filed a motion to dismiss in October 2019, and its
motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in January
2020.
Stamps.com said, "We believe that the case is without merit and
intend to defend it vigorously. Due to the early stage of the case,
neither the likelihood that a loss, if any, will be realized, nor
an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, can be
determined."
Stamps.com Inc. provides Internet-based mailing and shipping
solutions in the United States and Europe. The company offers
mailing and shipping solutions to mail and ship various mail
pieces
and packages through the United States Postal Service (USPS) under
the Stamps.com and Endicia brands. The company was formerly known
as StampMaster, Inc. and changed its name to Stamps.com Inc. in
December 1998. Stamps.com Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in El Segundo, California.
STATUS RESEARCH: Clifford Sues to Recover Costs Paid for Tokens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Clifford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STATUS RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT GMBH, JARRAD
HOPE, and CARL BENNETTS, Case No. 1:20-cv-02815 (S.D.N.Y., April 3,
2020), is brought on behalf of investors, who purchased SNT tokens
in the United States, to recover the consideration paid for the SNT
tokens, together with interest thereon, as well as attorneys' fees
and costs.
Various digital assets can reside on blockchains, including
cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, as well as
so-called "smart contracts" that operate under a set of
predetermined conditions agreed to by users. Certain of these
digital tokens are classified as "utility tokens" and are
associated with particular projects. Their primary purpose is to
allow the holder to use or access the associated project. Other
tokens are more speculative and are referred to as "security
tokens," and like a traditional security essentially represent
one's investment in a project. Although they take value from the
startup behind the project, they do not give the holder ownership
in that startup. Rather, investors purchase these tokens with the
idea that their value will increase as the network in which the
token can be used is expanded based upon the managerial efforts of
the issuer and those developing the project.
Because such "security tokens" are properly classified as
securities under federal and state law, the issuers of these
tokens, including Status, were required to file registration
statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Status, however, failed to do so, the Plaintiff alleges. By selling
these unregistered tokens to investors, Status reaped millions of
dollars in profits.
According to the complaint, the scheme worked as follows: First,
Status issued a "whitepaper" to investors that described in highly
technical terms the supposed utility to which SNT would be placed.
The Status whitepaper, however, omitted the disclosures that
securities laws and the SEC have long deemed essential to investor
protections in initial public offerings, including use of "plain
English" to describe the offering; a required list of key risk
factors; a description of key information and incentives concerning
management; warnings about relying on forward-looking statements;
an explanation of how the proceeds from the offering would be used;
and a standardized format that investors could readily follow.
Without these critical disclosures, investors in SNT tokens were
thus left to fend for themselves--precisely the opposite of what
the securities laws require.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Status did not disclose at
issuance that SNT was a security. In fact, the Status whitepaper
expressly stated that its protocol that relied on the SNT token
would allow "instant exchange and conversion of digital assets
(e.g. crypto tokens) and cryptocurrencies (e.g. Ether, Bitcoin,
ZCash) with high liquidity." Although Status described the SNT
tokens as something other than securities, they were securities.
This was not clear to a reasonable investor at purchase, however,
and would not have been reasonably apparent until, at the earliest,
April 3, 2019, when the SEC released a detailed "Framework" to
analyze digital assets, indicating that SNT and other similar
digital tokens are "investment contracts" and therefore securities
under Section 2 of the Securities Act of 1933, the Plaintiff
avers.
The Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover the
consideration paid for the SNT tokens with interest thereon at the
legal rate, or the equivalent in monetary damages plus interest at
the legal rate from the date of purchase, says the complaint.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of the Class
brings claims to recover the consideration paid for the SNT tokens,
together with interest thereon, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiff purchased SNT, an unregistered security.
Status is the developer of an open source messaging platform and
mobile interface to interact with decentralized applications that
run on the Ethereum Network.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
Spencer Gottlieb, Esq.
David Coon, Esq.
SELENDY & GAY, PLLC
1290 Sixth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10104
Email: pselendy@selendygay.com
jgoldstein@selendygay.com
sgottlieb@selendygay.com
dcoon@selendygay.com
- and -
Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
Edward Normand, Esq.
Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
Jordana L. Haviv, Esq.
ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Email: kyle@rcfllp.com
tnormand@rcfllp.com
vel@rcfllp.com
jhaviv@rcfllp.com
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION: Landowners Seek to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM AND BROOKE GRAMES, CRAIG
B. AND CYNTHIA D. DICKIE, JUDY H. JOHNSON, JAMES AND DIANE KOSTAN,
and PATRICK J. AND LISA A. LOYET, v. SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, ANN
D. BEGEMAN, PATRICK J. FUCHS, AND MARTIN J. OBERMAN, and SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION BOARD, Case No. 8:20-cv-00739-CEH-CPT ( M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class consisting of:
"Sarasota County landowners who have filed claims for
compensation in the United States Court of Federal Claims
and to whom Sarasota County issued demands or threats
requiring that the owners remove existing structures or
other improvements from their property"; and
2. appointing their counsel as class counsel.
This lawsuit arises from the federal Surface Transportation Board
invoking section 8(d) of the federal Trails Act which took private
property from several hundred Sarasota County, Florida landowners.
In apparent (but not at all clear) reliance upon the federal
government's invocation of the Trails Act, Sarasota County has
entered upon the private property of hundreds of owners and has
issued demands that the owners remove existing improvements (such
as swimming pools, patios, septic fields, sheds, fences and other
structures) from their land. Sarasota County demands that the
owners remove the improvements by March 30, 2020 or else Sarasota
County will direct its contractors to remove the owners' property
improvements.
The Surface Transportation Board of the United States is a federal,
bipartisan, independent adjudicatory board. The STB was established
in 1996 to assume some of the regulatory functions that had been
administered by the Interstate Commerce Commission when the ICC was
abolished.[CC]
Counsel for the Landowners are:
Stephen S. Davis, Esq.
Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II
True North Law, LLC
112 South Hanley Road, Suite 200
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 296-4000
Facsimile: (314) 296-4001
E-mail: thor@truenorthlawgroup.com
- and -
Andrew Prince Brigham, Esq.
Edward Scott Copeland, Esq.
Trevor Shane Hutson, Esq.
BRIGHAM PROPERTY RIGHTS LAW FIRM
2963 Dupont Avenue, Suite 3
Jacksonville, FL 32217
Telephone: (904) 730-9001
E-mail: abrigham@propertyrights.com
TD AMERITRADE: Bernstein Challenges Merger With Schwab Affiliate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Bernstein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, JOSEPH H. MOGLIA,
STEVE BOYLE, LORENZO A. BETTINO, V. ANN HAILEY, BRIAN M. LEVITT,
KAREN E. MAIDMENT, BHARAT B. MASRANI, IRENE R. MILLER, MARK L.
MITCHELL, WILBUR J. PREZZANO, TODD M. RICKETTS, ALLAN R. TESSLER,
and CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-03695 (D.N.J.
April 6, 2020), is brought against TD Ameritrade and the members of
its board of directors and Schwab and its affiliates for their
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed merger between TD Ameritrade and
Schwab.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have violated the
Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading
Joint Proxy/Prospectus on Form S-4 to be filed on March 10, 2020,
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
anticipation of disseminating it to Company stockholders. The
Registration Statement recommends that the Company's stockholders
vote in favor of a proposed transaction in which Americano
Acquisition Corp., an affiliate of Schwab, will merge with and into
TD Ameritrade, with TD Ameritrade surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Schwab. Pursuant to the terms of the definitive
agreement and plan of merger the companies entered into, each TD
Ameritrade stockholder will receive 1.0837 Schwab shares for each
share of TD Ameritrade shares that they hold on the record date.
The Defendants have asked TD Ameritrade's stockholders to vote for
the Proposed Transaction based upon the materially incomplete and
misleading representations and information contained in the
Registration Statement, in violation of the Exchange Act, the
Plaintiff contends. Specifically, the Registration Statement
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning the Company's and Schwab's financial projections and the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors, PJT
Partners, LP and Piper Sandler & Co., in support of their fairness
opinion. It further contains a materially misleading and incomplete
discussion and disclosure of the fee and financial interests of TD
Ameritrade's investment advisors, PJT Partners, LP and Piper
Sandler & Co.
The Plaintiff asserts that it is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the Registration Statement
is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the forthcoming
stockholder vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate
suffrage rights. For these reasons, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin
the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed
Transaction unless and until the material information is disclosed
to TD Ameritrade's stockholders or, in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff is the owner of TD Ameritrade common shares.
TD Ameritrade provides securities brokerage and related
technology-based financial services to retail investors and
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Howard T. Longman, Esq.
STULL STULL & BRODY
354 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 1800
Livingston, NJ 07039
Phone: (973) 9942315
Fax: 973-994 2319
Email: hlongman@ssbny.com
- and -
Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Phone: 212-292-4441
Fax: 212-292-4442
Email: lgrant@grantfirm.com
TELARIA INC: Rigrodsky Files Class Action Over Rubicon Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of Telaria, Inc. (NYSE: TLRA) common
stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of Telaria by The
Rubicon Project, Inc. ("Rubicon Project") and Madison Merger Corp.
("Merger Sub") announced on December 19, 2019 (the "Complaint").
The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against Telaria, its Board of Directors (the "Board"),
Rubicon Project, and Merger Sub, is captioned Sabatini v. Telaria,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00219 (D. Del.).
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
https://www.rigrodskylong.com/cases-telaria-inc,join.
On December 19, 2019, Telaria entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Rubicon Project and Merger
Sub. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Telaria will receive 1.082 shares of Rubicon Project common stock
for each share of Telaria common stock they own (the "Proposed
Transaction").
Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, the Company's and Rubicon Project's
financial projections and the analyses performed by Telaria's
financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable
relief and damages on behalf of holders of Telaria common stock.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 4, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware and New York, has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors
and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in securities
fraud and corporate class actions nationwide.
Contact:
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Seth D. Rigrodsky
Gina M. Serra
Tel: (888) 969-4242
(302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: info@rl-legal.com
Web site: https://rl-legal.com
[GN]
TEXAS BRINE: Saizon Entitled to Judgment Totaling $30K
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jay C. Zainey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana has entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law in the case, LISA T. LEBLANC, ET AL. v. TEXAS BRINE CO.,
LLC, ET AL, SECTION: "A" (5), Civil Action No. 12-2059 Consolidated
and Cases (E.D. La.).
The bellwether case was tried to the Court sitting without a jury
on Dec. 3 and 4, 2019, as to the issue of damages only.
Beginning in 1982, the Defendant, Texas Brine, operated a brine
well, known as the Oxy Geismar #3 Well, to produce brine from the
Napoleonville Salt Dome in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. The brine
was supplied to Legacy Vulcan, LLC and Occidental Chemical
Corporation for use at their facilities in Geismar, Louisiana.
On Aug. 3, 2012, a sinkhole appeared in the Bayou Corne area of
Assumption Parish in the vicinity of the Oxy Geismar #3 cavern,
which is located at the Napoleonville Salt Dome. The cause of, or
liability for, the Sinkhole is not at issue in the bellwether
damages trial.
The Plaintiff, Peggy Saizon, owns a 33.25-acre tract of land
located in Section 40, Township 12 South, Range 13 East, in the
Parish of Assumption, Louisiana in the Bayou Corne area near the
Napoleonville Salt Dome ("Saizon Tract"). Saizon is a member of
the Sanchez class, which is a putative class of persons who were
owners of uninhabited or undeveloped land within a two-mile radius
of the center of the Sinkhole. Ms. Saizon's husband purchased the
Saizon Tract in 1998 for $10 and other good and valuable
consideration. Mr. Saizon passed away in February 2008. The
ownership rights to the Saizon Tract were tied up in his succession
proceedings until February 2013 when Peggy Saizon became sole owner
of the property. Saizon has never lived on the Saizon Tract or in
Assumption Parish. Saizon has never had plans to build a home on
the Saizon Tract or live on it.
The Saizon Tract is now and has always been undeveloped and
uninhabited. It is vacant swamp land and presumably would be
considered "wetlands" by the federal government. It has no
structures, utility lines (such as electricity, water, or
sewerage), buildings, or improvements upon it. Even if the federal
government were willing to issue a permit to develop the Saizon
Tract, the cost to develop wetlands property like the Saizon Tract
is significant and often cost prohibitive.
The Saizon Tract was originally 35 acres in size. In 2000 and
2005, Mr. Saizon sold off two sections of the Saizon Tract to
adjacent land owners for $3,500 (1.59 acres) and $3,000 (.01 acre)
each.
While Mr. Saizon was still alive, one of the adjacent neighbors
(Mr. Daigre) was anxious to purchase a 70' by 40' section of the
Saizon Tract for $3,000. The sale was delayed initially by local
land regulations, and later by Mr. Saizon's death and the pendency
of his succession proceedings which did not conclude until 2013.
By then the Sinkhole had occurred and Ms. Saizon lost all contact
with the potential buyer, who presumably no longer owns or lives on
the adjacent property.
Given Mr. Daigre's diligence and tenacity in trying to purchase the
land prior to the Sinkhole, the loss of that $3,000 sale is
attributable to the Sinkhole. Because of the Sinkhole and the
devastation that it caused to the adjacent Bayou Corne community,
it is now highly unlikely that Saizon will receive any more offers
to purchase small sections of the Saizon Tract.
The post-Sinkhole or impaired value of the Saizon Tract is 40% of
its pre-Sinkhole value. In other words, the value of the Saizon
Tract has been reduced by 60% because of the Sinkhole. The 10%
stigma reduction proposed by Texas Brine's land expert does not
adequately account for the negative impact of the Sinkhole on the
market value of the Saizon Tract. The stigma impacts related to
the Sinkhole did not end when the evacuation order was lifted.
Texas Brine's land expert, Mr. Michael Truax, was convincing when
he opined that the unimpaired or pre-Sinkhole price per acre of the
Saizon Tract should be valued at $1,350 per acre or $45,000 for the
entire Saizon Tract. The highest or best use of the Saizon Tract
prior to the Sinkhole was use for recreational activities such as
hunting and fishing, and habitat conservation. The property was
not valuable waterfront property and there was no evidence to
suggest that oil companies, timber companies, or even hunters had
been interested in leasing the land prior to the Sinkhole. The
only "income" that the Saizons had ever received from the property
was the occasional selling off of small sections to adjoining
neighbors but even that only occurred three times (including the
Daigre sale that was not consummated because of the Sinkhole)
between 1998 when Mr. Saizon purchased the property and August 2012
when the Sinkhole emerged. Whether any other neighbors would have
been similarly interested in buying small sections of the Saizon
Tract is speculative. The best use for the Saizon Tract was not
for investment property even if that is what Ms. Saizon had hoped
for. The Sinkhole did not affect the use profile of the Saizon
Tract.
Mr. Truax credibly explained why he used the specific comparable
sales that he relied upon when coming up with the unimpaired price
per acre of the Saizon Tract. As a general rule in property
valuation of wetlands, the more wetlands one buys, the less the per
acre value. But the converse of that proposition is also true as
demonstrated by the fact that adjoining neighbors had purchased
small pieces of the Saizon Tract for prices that equated to $2,200,
$300,000, and $45,000 per acre. Those skewed prices do not drive
up the price per acre for all of the other acres in the tract that
did not adjoin a neighboring property.
Judge Zainey concludes that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over the action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act. Venue is proper in the district and is not contested.
The proper measure of the damages sustained by the Saizon Tract as
a result of the Sinkhole is determined by the difference between
the property's unimpaired (pre-Sinkhole) and impaired
(post-Sinkhole) value. The pre-Sinkhole value of the Saizon Tract
was $45,000. Applying the 60% stigma effect factor means that the
Sinkhole reduced the value of the Saizon Tract by $27,000. This is
the amount that Saizon is entitled to recover for diminution of
value to her land.
For loss of use damages, the Judge awarded Saizon the $3,000 that
she would have made from the Daigre sale had the Sinkhole not
occurred. However, Saizon is not entitled to greater loss of use
damages because she did not use the property prior to the Sinkhole,
and she did not establish that she would have used the property but
for the mandatory evacuation order that was in place until October
7, 2016.
Saizon is entitled to judgment in her favor totaling $30,000, the
Court opines.
The Court cannot enter a final judgment against Texas Brine until
the percentage of Texas Brine's fault for the Sinkhole is
determined. As the Court has already explained when ruling on the
parties' collateral estoppel motions, a plaintiff like Saizon may
try the issue of Texas Brine's liability for the Sinkhole anew to a
federal jury or may opt to accept the 35% fault allocation that was
determined in state court if that decision has not been overturned
on appeal.
A status conference with the Court and the counsel for Saizon and
Texas Brine has been set to discuss the next step in Saizon's case
against Texas Brine.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 4, 2020 Findings of
Facts & Conclusions of Law is available at https://is.gd/3o42Tk
from Leagle.com.
Alton Shelby Easterly, Special Master, represented by A. Shelby
Easterly, III, Easterly Law Office.
Lisa T. Leblanc, Plaintiff, represented by Autumn Alycia Town, Law
Office of Autumn Town, LLC, Calvin Clifford Fayard, Jr. --
calvinfayard@fayardlaw.com -- Fayard & Honeycutt, David Blayne
Honeycutt, Fayard & Honeycutt, Jennifer L. Crose, Jim S. Hall &
Associates, Kevin Patrick Klibert, Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Lana Ourso
Chaney, Lana Ourso Chaney, Attorney at Law, Lawrence J. Centola,
III -- lcentola@mbfirm.com -- Martzell & Bickford, Matthew B.
Moreland -- mmoreland@becnellaw.com -- Jim S. Hall & Associates,
Richard Gerard Perque -- richard@perquelaw.com -- Law Office of
Richard G. Perque, LLC & Salvadore Christina, Jr., Becnel Law Firm,
LLC.
Nathan J. Leblanc, Beverly S. Vaughn & Jay M. Vaughn, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Autumn Alycia Town, Law Office of Autumn Town, LLC,
Jennifer L. Crose, Jim S. Hall & Associates, Kevin Patrick Klibert,
Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Lana Ourso Chaney, Lana Ourso Chaney,
Attorney at Law, Matthew B. Moreland, Jim S. Hall & Associates,
Richard Gerard Perque, Law Office of Richard G. Perque, LLC &
Salvadore Christina, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC.
John Hill, Katherine Blanchard, Cherie Blanchard, Ginger Vaughn,
Allen Hill, Ethel Gaudet, David Blanchard, Ross Blanchard, Clint
Vaughn, Louis Altizan, III & Linda Cavalier, Plaintiffs,
represented by Calvin Clifford Fayard, Jr., Fayard & Honeycutt,
Lawrence J. Centola, III, Martzell & Bickford, Matthew B. Moreland,
Jim S. Hall & Associates & Richard Gerard Perque, Law Office of
Richard G. Perque, LLC.
Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christoffer C. Friend, Jones Walker, Angus Joe Dodson, Gibbs &
Bruns LLP, pro hac vice, Grant Davis-Denny, Munger, Tolles & Olson,
LLP, pro hac vice, Kathy Dawn Patrick, Gibbs & Bruns LLP, Laura
Kissel Cassidy, Gibbs & Bruns LLP, Meghan Elizabeth Smith, Jones
Walker, Nicole M. Duarte, Jones Walker LLP & Tarak Anada, Jones
Walker.
Agricultural Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by George
James Richaud, Young, Richaud & Myers, LLC.
American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co, Steadfast Insurance
Company & Zurich American Insurance Company, Defendants,
represented by Glen Mercer, Salley, Hite, Mercer & Resor LLC &
Kourtney Twenhafel French, Salley, Hite, Mercer & Resor LLC.
Chubb Custom Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John
Powers Wolff, III, Keogh, Cox & Wilson Ltd.
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
of Ohio & National Surety Corporation, Defendants, represented by
James A. Rowell, Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Sidney W. Degan, III,
Degan, Blanchard & Nash & Nicholas J. Cenac, Degan, Blanchard &
Nash.
Texas Brine Company, LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by
Christopher Chocheles -- cchocheles@shergarner.com -- Sher, Garner,
Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, James M. Garner, Sher,
Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Jeffrey D. Kessler,
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Jonathan B.
Cerise, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC,
Leopold Z. Sher, Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert,
LLC, Peter L. Hilbert, Jr. -- philbert@shergarner.com -- Sher,
Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, LLC, Ryan O'Neil Luminais
-- rluminais@shergarner.com -- Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein
& Hilbert, LLC & Dane S. Ciolino -- dane@daneciolino.com -- Dane S.
Ciolino, LLC.
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Thornton Investigating Shareholders' Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thornton Law Firm LLP announces that it is investigating a lawsuit
filed against Tupperware Brands Corporation on behalf of Tupperware
shareholders (TUP). TUP investors who have purchased at least
20,000 shares of TUP stock between January 30, 2019 and February
24, 2020, that are interested to learn more about the case and the
lead plaintiff process, are encouraged to visit
https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/tup. Shareholders may also contact the
Thornton Law Firm at shareholder@tenlaw.com, or call 617-531-3917.
Interested TUP shareholders have until April 27, 2020, to apply to
be lead plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws, and the class has not yet been certified. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member. There is no minimum number of shares required to be a class
member.
Tupperware Brands Corporation operates as a direct-to-consumer
marketer of various products across a range of brands and
categories in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Asia Pacific,
North America, and South America. The Company manufactures and
sells an array of products for consumers under the Tupperware brand
name. The Company also manufactures and distributes skin and hair
care products, cosmetics, bath and body care, toiletries,
fragrances, jewelry, and nutritional products under the Avroy
Shlain, Fuller, NaturCare, Nutrimetics, and Nuvo brands. The
Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose the
following: (1) Tupperware lacked effective internal controls; (2)
Tupperware would need to investigate Fuller Mexico's accounting and
liabilities; (3) Tupperware would be unable to timely file its
annual report on Form 10-K for its fiscal year 2019; (4) Tupperware
did not properly account for its accounts payable and accrued
liabilities at Fuller Mexico; (5) Tupperware provided overvalued
earnings per share guidance; (6) Tupperware would need relief from
its $650 million Credit Agreement; and (7) as a result, Defendants'
statements about Tupperware's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times. It is alleged that when the market learned
the truth about Tupperware, investors suffered damages.
If you have purchased at least 20,000 shares of TUP stock (TUP),
please contact the Thornton Law Firm's shareholder rights team at
shareholder@tenlaw.com, or call 617-531-3917 to discuss the lead
plaintiff process.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/tup
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing individual shareholders and institutional investors in
recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its
attorneys have established track records litigating securities
cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on
behalf of shareholders.
Contact:
Guillaume O. Buell
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street, 13th Floor
State Street Financial Center
Boston, Massachusetts 02111
E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com
Tel: 617-531-3917
[GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Verhines Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SPENCER VERHINES, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., Case No. 27-BC-CGC20583684 (Filed March 12, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 17, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01886-JCS to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and the putative class members are
owed compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and an injunction
requiring Uber to provide paid sick leave under California law.
Uber is an American multinational ride-hailing company offering
services that include peer-to-peer ridesharing, ride service
hailing, food delivery, and a micromobility system with electric
bikes and scooters.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
Theane Evangelis, Esq.
Heather Richardson, Esq.
Blaine Evanson, Esq.
Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
hrichardson@gibsondunn.com
bevanson@gibsondunn.com
jlipschutz@gibsondunn.com
UNITED PARCEL: Dominguez Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit styled as Andrew Dominguez Individually and
on Behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public
v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, CO., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1
through, Case No. 5:18-cv-01162 JGB (Spx) (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on May 4, 2020, for an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all current and former California-based non-exempt part-
time/seasonal hourly employees who worked for the
Defendant UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO.'s facilities located
in Ontario, California from August 11, 2013 to the
present"; and
2. certifying the following subclasses:
a) Meal Break Subclass:
"all current and former California-based non-exempt
part-time/seasonal hourly employees who worked for the
Defendant UNITED PARCEL SERVICE., CO.'s facilities
located in Ontario, California and who worked a shift
in excess of 17 hours during the period from August 11,
2013 to the present";
b) Rest Period Subclass:
"all current and former California-based non-exempt
part-time/seasonal hourly employees who worked for the
Defendant UNITED PARCEL SERVICE., CO.'s facilities
located in Ontario, California who worked shifts in
excess of 21 hours from August 11, 2013 to the
present"; and
c) Wage Statement Penalty Subclass:
"all current and former California-based non-exempt
part-time/seasonal hourly employees who worked for the
Defendant UNITED PARCEL SERVICE., CO.'s facilities
located in Ontario, California from August 11, 2013 to
the present."
United Parcel is a wholly owned subsidiary of United Parcel Service
Inc.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are:
J. Scott Russo, Esq.
RUSSO & DUCKWORTH, LLP
2801 West Coast Hwy., Ste. 270
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Telephone: (949) 752-7106
Facsimile: (949) 752-0629
- and -
Robert E. Bright, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT E. BRIGHT
2801 West Coast Hwy., Ste. 270
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Telephone: (949) 396-2406
Facsimile: (949) 534-0508
UNITED SHORE: Bruce Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Mary Beth Bruce, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. United Shore Financial Services d/b/a United
Wholesale Mortgage, Case No. 2083cv00126, was removed from the
Massachusetts Superior Court, Plymouth County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 3, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-10659 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as other personal property.
United Shore Financial Services, LLC, provides mortgage lending
services. The Company offers online financing services and mortgage
loans to home purchasers.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Krystle S. Guillory Tadesse, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
2800 Financial Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
Phone: (401) 274-9200
Email: krystle.tadesse@lockelord.com
UNITED STATES: Johnson Sues SBA Chief in District of Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jovita Carranza. The
case is styled as Godfrey Johnson, P.C. a Colorado Corporation, on
behalf of itself and all similarly situated businesses within the
jurisdiction of the Court v. Jovita Carranza, in her official
capacity as Administrator of the United States Small Business
Administration, Case No. 1:20-cv-00920-RBJ (D. Colo., April 3,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as APA Review/Appeal for
Administrative Procedure Act.
Jovita Carranza is an American politician of the Republican Party
who is serving as the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration since 2020.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Kirk McGill, Esq.
GODFREY JOHNSON PC
9557 South Kingston Court
Englewood, CO 80112-5952
Phone: (303) 228-0700
Email: mcgill@gojolaw.com
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA: Doe Civil Rights Suit Removed to D. Neb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jane Doe, and all others similarly situated v.
Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, Hank Bounds
President of the University of Nebraska, Ronnie Green Chancellor of
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Jake Johnson Assistant Vice
Chancellor for Student Affairs, Meagan Counley Deputy Title IX
Coordinator for UNL, Tami Strickman Associate to the Chancellor and
Title IX Coordinator, Marc Pearce Assistant Dean for Student
Affairs and Administration at the University of Nebraksa College of
Law, individually and in their personal capacity, Case No.
CI20-662, was removed from the Nebraska District, Lancaster County,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska on April 3,
2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-03036-RFR-MDN to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as education civil rights.
The Board of Regents--the governing body for the University of
Nebraska--consists of eight voting members elected by district for
six-year terms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abby K. Osborn, Esq.
Joy A. Shiffermiller, Esq.
SHIFFERMILLER LAW FIRM
1002 G Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
Phone: (402) 484-7700
Fax: (402) 484-7714
Email: abby@shiffermillerlaw.com
joy@shiffermillerlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Bren H. Chambers, Esq.
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA
3835 Holdrege
Lincoln, NE 68583-0745
Phone: (402) 473-1201
Fax: (402) 472-2038
Email: bchambers@nebraska.edu
- and -
Lily Amare, Esq.
Susan K. Sapp, Esq.
CLINE, WILLIAMS LAW FIRM
233 South 13th Street
1900 US Bank Building
Lincoln, NE 68508-2095
Phone: (402) 474-6900
Fax: (402) 474-5393
Email: lamare@clinewilliams.com
ssapp@clinewilliams.com
US BANK: Leitzman Sues in S.D. Indiana Alleging Violation of FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. BANK, N.A. The
case is styled as Cody Leitzman, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated v. U.S. BANK, N.A., Case No.
1:20-cv-01055-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind., April 5, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
US Bank NA operates as a bank. The Company offers products and
services such as internet and mobile banking, internet bill pay,
credit cards, options for paying bills, online statements, saving
account, mortgages, and home loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Marco, Esq.
Larry Paul Smith, Esq.
SMITHMARCO, P.C.
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 546-6539
Fax: (888) 418-1277
Email: dmarco@smithmarco.com
lsmith@smithmarco.com
VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Siers Suit Alleging Violation of WARN Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Siers, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. VELODYNE LIDAR, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02290 (N.D.
Cal., April 3, 2020), arises from the Defendant's plant closing or
mass layoff that started on March 30, 2020.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of former employees, who worked
for the Defendant and who were terminated without cause as part of,
or as the foreseeable result of, the plant closing or mass layoff
conducted by the Defendant beginning on March 30, 2020, and who
were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their
terminations by the Defendant, as required by the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act and the California WARN Act.
On March 30, 2020, the Defendant terminated the employment of over
140 employees at its San Jose location, which constitutes 33% or
more of the workforce at that site of employment, with only one day
of written notice.
According to the complaint, while the Defendant's written notice
told employees that the layoffs were caused by the recent COVID-19
pandemic, that representation is not consistent with the
Defendant's recent business activities. The Defendant had already
begun transferring production jobs overseas beginning in the summer
of 2019 and had planned to continue doing so prior to the outbreak
of COVID-19.
The Defendant's written notice failed to provide employees with a
reason for why it was giving them just one day's notice, when a
layoff was reasonably foreseeable before that time, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Velodyne as a production engineer at
Velodyne's worksite located in San Jose, California.
Velodyne Lidar is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 638-8800
Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
- and -
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
Chauniqua Young, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
Email: mscimone@outtengolden.com
cyoung@outtengolden.com
- and -
Paul W. Mollica, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
161 North Clark Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 6060
Phone: (312) 997-5216
Facsimile: (646) 509-2075
Email: pmollica@outtengolden.com
VERMONT: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in West-Bruyette Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD WEST and JOSEPH BRUYETTE, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. AL GOBEILLE,
Vermont Secretary of Human Services, MARTHA MAKSYM, Vermont Deputy
Secretary of Human Services, MICHAEL TOUCHETTE, Vermont Department
of Corrections Commissioner, BENJAMIN WATTS, Vermont Department of
Corrections Health Services Director, in their official capacities,
and CENTURION OF VERMONT, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00081-wks (D. Vt.),
the Hon. Judge William K. Sessions III entered an order granting a
motion to certify class.
The Court said, "The primary allegation is that Defendants have
refused to provide appropriate medical care to members of the
proposed class, and that a single injunction and declaratory
judgment will deliver relief to all class members. Those claims are
plainly within the ambit of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(b)."
This case is a putative class action brought on behalf of Vermont
inmates and detainees who have been diagnosed with chronic
Hepatitis C Virus. The Complaint alleges that, contrary to the
prevailing standard of medical care, Defendants have refused to
provide available and effective treatment because treatment is
expensive. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief so
that class members can begin receiving appropriate care.[CC]
WCA WASTE: Holmes et al. Sue Over Inadequate Health Plan Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
ULYSSES HOLMES and LAPHADRA HOLMES, Plaintiffs v. WCA WASTE
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00766-SCB-JSS (M.D.
Fla., April 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
its failure to comply with the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant failed to provide critical information items on its COBRA
notice associated to its sponsored group health plan. The
Defendant's notice did not specify the plan administrator and the
termination date of the Plaintiffs and Class members' health
insurance coverage, which affect the Plaintiffs and Class Members'
ability to maintain their health coverage.
WCA Waste Systems, Inc. is a Houston, Texas-based company that
provides solid waste management services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
gnichols@wfclaw.com
WOODWARD GOVERNOR: Dominguez Labor Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ARISTEO DOMINGUEZ, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; WOODWARD HRT,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
20STCV00322 (Filed Jan. 6, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
March 20, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02661 to the proceeding.
The complaint asserts three causes of action against the Defendants
for minimum wage violations, waiting time penalties, and unfair
competition.
Woodward designs and manufactures relays and industrial controls.
The company offers range of products including hydraulic controls,
smart actuators, electromechanical systems, photonic controls,
servovalves, electro-hydraulic, turret control and stabilization
systems.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Timothy L. Hix, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
thix@seyfarth.com
XPO LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Webb FLSA Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffery Webb, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. XPO LOGISTICS MANUFACTURING, LLC, Case No.
4:20-cv-00377-LPR (E.D. Ark., April 3, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a
result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.
The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The
payroll system used by the Defendant rounded hours worked by the
Plaintiff in favor of the Defendant. The rounding in the
Defendant's time-keeping system resulted in several hours of unpaid
work each month for the Plaintiff. The Defendant knew or showed
reckless disregard for whether the way it paid the Plaintiff and
other hourly-paid employees violated the FLSA and AMWA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
manufacturing facility employee from January 2020 until March
2020.
The Defendant provides supply chain solutions for companies around
the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
ZYNGA INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over 'Words With Friends' Hack
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Vaas, writing for Naked Security, reports that, Zynga, maker
of addictive (and crook-tempting) online social games such as
FarmVille, Mafia Wars, Cafe+ World and Zynga Poker, is facing a
potential class action lawsuit over the September 2019 breach in
which hackers got access to more than 218 million Words with
Friends accounts.
Teiss recounts that Zynga, the American social game developer,
suffered a massive data breach in September last year when a
Pakistani hacker gained unauthorised access to their database.
According to The Hacker News who spoke to the Pakistani hacker, the
database owned by Zynga, who also developed the massively-popular
mobile game Farmville, contained profile information of over 218
million people who downloaded the Words With Friends app on or
before September 2 last year.
Zynga's Draw Something was also targeted in the September breach.
According to Naked Security, the threat actor known as
GnosticPlayers went on to claim responsibility for the breach - yet
another cache to add to the nearly one billion user records they'd
already claimed to have stolen from nearly 45 popular online
services earlier in 2019.
Zynga admitted to the breach at the time, saying that hackers got
their hands on "certain player account information" but that, at
least during the early stages of its investigation, it didn't think
any financial information was accessed.
The game maker didn't disclose how many accounts were affected,
saying only that they'd contact players with affected accounts.
Have I Been Pwned confirmed in December 2019 that more than 173
million accounts were hit.
Hacker News, which scrutinized a sample sent over by
GnosticPlayers, said that the breached data included names, emails,
Login IDs, hashed passwords - "SHA1 with salt", password reset
tokens, Zynga account IDs, and connections to Facebook and other
social media services.
We don't know exactly what "SHA1 with salt" means, but we do know
that it isn't bcrypt, scrypt, PBKDF2 or any other of the recognized
password hashing functions you'd hope and expect to have been
used.
At any rate, GnosticPlayers also claimed to have drained data from
other Zynga-developed games, including Draw Something and the
discontinued OMGPOP game, which allegedly exposed clear text
passwords for more than seven million users.
The complaint (PDF), which is seeking a jury trial and class
status, was filed in the U.S. District Court for California. The
plaintiffs' lawyers say that Zynga allegedly failed "to reasonably
safeguard" player information, referring to Zynga's "substandard
password security."
The failed complaint also maintains that Zynga failed to notify
users in a timely manner. It's charging Zynga with being
responsible for the plaintiffs' personally identifiable information
(PII) being accessed, acquired, and stolen for the purpose of of
misusing the Plaintiffs' data and causing further irreparable harm
to Plaintiffs' personal, financial, reputational, and future
well-being.
After the theft of Plaintiffs' PII from Zynga's platform, it was
distributed to and among hacker forums and other identity and
financial thieves for the purpose of illegally misusing, reselling,
and stealing Plaintiffs' PII and identity.
Plaintiffs have been damaged as a result, their lawyers said in the
complaint.
The suit was brought on behalf of two affected users, one of whom
is a parent of an affected user who's underage, and one of whom had
a Zynga account herself.
The Plaintiffs' lawyers suggest that Zynga "unconscionably"
deceived users regarding the safety and protection of their user
information. They also maintain that a large number of minor
children were implicated in the breach, pointing to a study that
estimates that 8% of all mobile gamers are between the ages of 13
and 17.
As the lawyers noted, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has said
that when children are victims of a data breach, "it might be years
before you or your child realizes there's a problem."
The lawsuit lists 14 counts of action and claims for relief,
ranging from negligence and violation of state data breach statutes
to unjust enrichment.
It also claims that while Zynga posted a warning on its website, it
has yet to notify users to warn them of the breach, with the class
arguing the company "effectively hid the fact that it suffered a
data breach" and instead spent the time "shoring up its legal
defenses."
From the complaint:
Only those users who happened to visit Zynga's website on their
own volition, read about the breach in the news, or had signed up
to receive email data breach notifications from independent third
parties that monitor data breaches were made aware of the breach.
The plaintiffs, along with others affected by the breach, are at
risk of fraud, identity theft, and criminal misuse of their
personal information "for years to come," the lawsuit argues. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***