/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200430.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 30, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 87
Headlines
ABC PEST CONTROL: Smith Suit Transferred From W.D. to S.D. Texas
ABM INDUSTRIES: Trial of Bucio Class Claims Set for October 26
ADOMANI INC: Continues to Defend Mollik Class Suit
ADT INC: Accord Reached in State Court Litigation Over IPO
ADT INC: Archer Suit Against Defender Holdings in Discovery
ADT INC: Settlement Reached in Villegas Class Suit
ADT INC: Trial in Snow Class Suit Set for June 2020
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Makena-Related Suits
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Metoyer BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued by Rahman Over NDMA in Metformin
APACHE CORP: Underpays Pipeline Inspectors, Perdue Claims
APOTHAKER SCIAN: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Santiago"
ARK WOODWORKS: Lybarger Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in Cal.
ASCENA RETAIL: Bid to Nix Amended Consolidated Complaint Pending
ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Nix "Huang"
ASSET PLUS: Uses COVID-19 Pandemic to Steal Funds, Corinti Says
AVON PRODUCTS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Suit in New York
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Freedman Class Suit
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Gaynor Suit Against MLV & Co. Ongoing
BABY BREZZA: Couple Hits Mixers' Watery Infant Formula
BANCO SANTANDER: Required by Court to Implement New Target Program
BLUE LINE: Pontigo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Cervantes Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BUREAU OF PRISONS: Williams Suit Asks Court to Certify Class
CARGO AIRPORT: Settlement in Oladipo Suit Wins Final Approval
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Continues to Defend Tennessee Class Action Suit
CENTENNIAL RESOURCE: Maillet Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
CHASE BANK: Ryan M. Kull Sues Over Unfair Processing of PPP Loans
CHINA: Sued by Aharon and Medical Workers Over Hoarding of PPE
CHUBB LTD: Breaches Duty Over COVID-19 Outbreak, Truhaven Claims
CITY OF GLASGOW, KY: Boyd Sues Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights
CLEARVIEW AI: Burke Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Cal.
CLECO CORP: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit
CLIENT SERVICES: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in Hahn Suit
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Still Defends ERISA Class Suit in New York
COOPER COMPANIES: Settlement in Contact Lens Suit Finally Approved
CREDIT FIRST: Ebanks Sues in N.D. Ohio Alleging Violation of TCPA
CROWN CASTLE: Facing Securities Class Suits
DAVITA INC: Still Faces Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Lawsuit
DCM SERVICES: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in Zurakov Suit
DIALYSIS CARE: Smith Sues Over Violations of FLSA, IMWL and IWPCA
DISCOVER ENTERTAINMENT: Dancers Sue Over Illegal Tip Pool
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Underway
DONALD NUNCKEL: Her Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Age Discrimination
EL POLLO: Class Action Settlement Formally Approved
ENERGY TRANSFER: ACERS Securities Class Suit Underway
ENERGY TRANSFER: Awaits Court Ruling in Regency Merger Litigation
EQM MIDSTREAM: Smith Says Merger Info Misleading
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Bid to Dismiss SDNY Securities Suit Pending
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces Coulter FCRA Suit Over Credit Report
FGL HOLDINGS: Lin Securities Suit Challenges Merger With Fidelity
FRANCHISE WORLD: Bittner TCPA Suit Moved from Ariz. to Conn.
FROST BANK: Defrauds Small Business Owners, Kennard Law Alleges
FULTON BANK: Still Defends Kress Class Suit in New Jersey
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Still Faces 3 Class Suits over TSYS Merger Deal
GODADDY INC: Initial Court OK on Settlement of 3 TCPA Suits Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Consolidated Complaint over Uber IPO Filed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Arbitration Bid in Employment Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss VRDO-Related Suit Still Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Drop Commodities-Related Suit Still Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Suit Over Altice USA IPO Still Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Lawsuits over Aluminum Trades Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Suit over Mortgage Matters Stayed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Securities Case over 1MDB Sought
GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
GRAND FLORIDIAN: Santos Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Pay
GRUPO AEROMEXICO: Snyder Sues Over Denial to Refund Void Flights
H&R BLOCK: Appeal in Olosoni and Snarr Class Suit Still Pending
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Stay Proceeding in Swanson Class Suit Pending
HABIT RESTAURANTS: Class Suits Challenge YUM! Brands Merger
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Still Faces Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
HEWLETT PACKARD: Demurrer in Ross and Rogus Suit Granted in Part
HEWLETT PACKARD: May 14 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Forsyth Suit
HILLS BANCORPORATION: Still Defends Overdraft Fees Class Suit
IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 LLC Class Action
ING GROEP: Appeal in SIBOR and SOR Related Suit Pending
ING GROEP: ING Spain Still Defends Mortgage Expenses Claims Suit
ING GROEP: Tolling Agreement Entered in MEX Bond Price Fixing Suit
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Still Defends Class Suits Related Dyke Collapse
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Suit v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Ongoing
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Unit Still Defends Suit in Tel-Aviv-Jaffa
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Units Continue to Defend Suits in Be'er Sheva
J M SMUCKER: Toxin Free Suit Over CPPA Violation Moved to D.D.C.
J.J. MARSHALL: Gartrell Seeks to Certify FDCPA & FCCPA Classes
JACK LAURIE: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Powell Suit
JENN ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Welch Claims
JP MORGAN: Defrauds Small Business Owners, Starwalk Suit Alleges
KFORCE INC: Defends Wahrer Suit over Calif. Labor Code Violations
KFORCE INC: Reaches Preliminary Settlement for Smith Class Suit
LACY KATZEN: Susino Sues in W.D. New York Over Violation of FDCPA
LAND O'LAKES: Cook Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
LATINOS MOTORS: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
LEXINGTON LAW: Faces Williams Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
LG ELECTRONICS: Appeals D. Minn. Order in Hudock Suit to 8th Cir.
LOANCARE LLC: Owoc Suit Moved From Circuit Court to S.D. Florida
M&L INSULATION: Torres Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MCCARTHY & BURGESS: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in Zurakov
MCDONALD'S CAR WASH: Jones Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Mejia Sues Over TCPA and FDCPA Violations
METROPOLITAN LIFE: 9th Circuit Dismissed the Appeal in Martin Suit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in Miller Class Suit Pending
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Atkins Suit Underway in Nevada
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Nationwide Class Settlement in Newman Approved
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends Julian & McKinney Suit
MGP INGREDIENTS: Retirement Trust Sues Over Stock Price Decline
MIAMI-DADE, FL: Swain Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020: Faces Fernandez Class Suit in S.D. New York
MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Discovery Ongoing in Freedman Suit
MILWAUKEE, WI: Kreuziger Seeks to Certify Riparian Owners Class
MINNESOTA: Tyler Suit Over Rights Violation Removed to D. Minn.
NATURAL HEALTH: Plaintiff's Opening Brief Due June 1
NCAA: Conditional Class Certification under FLSA Sought
NOKIA CORP: Still Defends Suit over Alcatel-Lucent Integration
OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Still Ongoing
OPTIMAL LOGISTICS: Tabiel Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
ORANGE AVE CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Perez Claims
OREGON: Maney et al. Sue Over Lack of COVID-19 Measures in Jails
PARTSBASE INC: Certification of Martin's Collective Action Sought
PBF HOLDING: Continues to Defend Goldstein Class Action
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Liberty Resources Seeks Class Certification
PLYMOUTH CTY., MA: Baez Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
PRIMEXX ENERGY: West Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
PROGENICS PHARMA: Johnson Files Suit Over Lantheus Merger Deal
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Opposition to Class Certification Bid Tossed
R&H INDUSTRIES: MacDonald Sues Over Auto-Dialed Telemarketing Calls
RADIUS GLOBAL: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in O'Boyle Suit
REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Marin County
RETAIL RECOVERY: Certification of Classes & SubClasses Sought
REXALL SUNDOWN: Class Certification Bid in Seegert Suit Denied
RFMS INC: Faces Cosgrove Class Suit in Illinois Circuit Court
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Taaffe Suit Moved From Florida to California
SAINT-GOBAIN: Certification of Rule 23 Classes Sought in "Baker"
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: Underpays Social Workers, Marques et al Say
SEFAH LLC: Myers Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
SELRICO SERVICES: Barrera Seeks Overtime Pay for Supervisors
SEXUAL MD SOLUTIONS: Novus Sues over ESWT Treatment Cost Increase
SHATOS AUTO: Faces Roberts-Glover FDUTPA Suit Over Service Fees
SI-BONE INC: Settlement Agreement Executed in Fromer Class Suit
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Suit Pending
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Continues to Defend Ciccio Class Suit
STATE AUTO: Underpays Property Insurance Claim, Cedarview Says
STERLING BANCORP: Faces Okla. Police Retirement System Suit
STITCH FIX: California Securities Class Suit Remains Pending
SURFACE ONCOLOGY: Says Ang Class Suit Concluded
SYNACOR INC: Appeal in SDNY Class Suit Pending
TARGET CORPORATION: Barnes Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
TOWN SPORTS: Still Charges Members Amid Closure, Delvecchio Says
TRAVELEX CURRENCY: Fails to Secure and Safeguard PII, Picon Says
TRIVAGO NV: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of IPO-Related Class Suit
UNIVAR USA: Fails to Pay Overtime to CSRs, Edwards Claims
US PREMIUM: NBP Still Defends Antitrust & Labelling Class Suits
VBI VACCINES: Israel Class Action Suit Stayed
VF OUTDOOR: Jones Sues in E.D. New York Alleging of Violation ADA
VIVINT SOLAR: Facing Customer Class Suits in California
VIVINT SOLAR: Former Installers Drop Claims
VIVINT SOLAR: May 22 Final Settlement Hearing in San Diego Case
VIVINT SOLAR: Still Defends 2 Class Suits in New York
WAL-MART STORES: Fails to Keep Premises Safe, Williams Suit Says
WALGREEN COMPANY: Hernandez Sues in Illinois Over Data Breach
WALMART INC: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Sousa Suit Claims
WALMART INC: Flores Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
WELD COUNTY, CO: Carranza Wants Inmates to Be Safe From COVID-19
WELLESLEY BANCORP: Parshall Agrees to Drop Case
WILSON LIGHTING: Hanlin FLSA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
WORLD HEALTH: Kling Sues Over Careless Handling of Covid-19 Issue
ZYNERBA PHARMA: Class Suit Over Zygel Trial Reports Ongoing
*********
ABC PEST CONTROL: Smith Suit Transferred From W.D. to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABC PEST CONTROL
OF HOUSTON, INC. d/b/a ABC HOME & COMMERCIAL SERVICES and RALEIGH
W. JENKINS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00008 (Filed Jan. 2, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Houston) on April 17, 2020.
The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-01378 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Andrew S. Hanen.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly
situated current and former pest control technicians, who elect to
opt in to this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,for
unpaid minimum wages and overtime.
The Plaintiff worked for ABC Houston and all other Defendants as
pest control technicians providing pest and rodent control and
elimination services for residential and commercial properties. The
Plaintiff alleges that he worked 9-14 hours per day, six days a
week, often in extreme heat and/or while handling dangerous
chemicals.
ABC Pest provides pest and rodent control services to clients in
commercial and residential properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trang Quoc Tran, Esq.
TRAN LAW FIRM, LLP
2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104
Houston, TX 77063
Telephone: (713) 223-8855
Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
The Defendants are represented by:
Jacob Allen Lewis, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
2000 McKinney Ave., Ste. 1400
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 932-6400
E-mail: jlewis@grayreed.com
- and -
Ruth Ann Daniels, Esq.
GRAY REED & MCGRAW LLP
1601 Elm Street, Ste. 4600
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (469) 320-6037
Facsimile: (214) 953-1332
E-mail: rdaniels@grayreed.com
ABM INDUSTRIES: Trial of Bucio Class Claims Set for October 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the class action
claims in the Consolidated Cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM
Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, pending in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Francisco, accruing prior to
April 30, 2013 are set for trial on October 26, 2020.
The Bucio case is a class action pending in San Francisco Superior
Court that alleges the company failed to provide legally required
meal periods and make additional premium payments for such meal
periods, pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse janitors
for travel expenses. There is also a claim for penalties under the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").
On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.
On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which
was denied. The plaintiffs appealed the class certification issues.
The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision
in the appeal.
The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate
District, heard oral arguments on November 7, 2017. On December 11,
2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order denying
class certification and remanded the matter for certification of a
meal period, travel expense reimbursement, and split shift class.
The case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings on
class certification, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial.
On September 20, 2018, the trial court entered an order defining
four certified subclasses of janitors who were employed by the
legacy ABM janitorial companies in California at any time between
April 7, 2002 and April 30, 2013, on claims based on alleged
previous automatic deduction practices for meal breaks, unpaid meal
premiums, unpaid split shift premiums, and unreimbursed business
expenses, such as mileage reimbursement for use of personal
vehicles to travel between worksites.
On February 1, 2019, the trial court held that the discovery
related to PAGA claims allegedly arising after April 30, 2013 would
be stayed until after the class and PAGA claims accruing prior to
April 30, 2013 had been tried. The parties engaged in mediation in
July 2019, which did not result in settlement of the case.
On October 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial
court to certify additional classes based on an alleged failure to
maintain time records, an alleged failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and an alleged practice of combining meal and rest
breaks. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify
additional classes on December 26, 2019.
The case was re-assigned to a new judge on January 6, 2020.
Since that time, Plaintiffs have filed discovery and sanctions
motions, and ABM has filed summary adjudication motions, which are
pending. The class action claims accruing prior to April 30, 2013
are set for trial on October 26, 2020.
ABM Industries said, "Prior to trial, we will have the opportunity
to, among other things, seek decertification of the classes or
engage in further mediation if we deem such actions appropriate. We
expect to engage in one or more such activities in upcoming
quarters."
ABM Industries Incorporated provides integrated facility solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates through
Business & Industry, Aviation, Technology & Manufacturing,
Education, Technical Solutions, and Healthcare segments. The
company was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.
ADOMANI INC: Continues to Defend Mollik Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
ADOMANI, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI,
Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493.
On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D.
Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside against the company, certain of its executive
officers, Mr. Monfort, and the two underwriters of the company's
offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017.
This complaint alleges that documents related to our offering of
common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained materially
false and misleading statements and that all defendants violated
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that we and the
individual defendants violated Section 15 of the Securities Act, in
connection therewith.
The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i)
certification of a class under California substantive law and
procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to
be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding
of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at
the discretion of the Court.
Plaintiff's counsel has subsequently filed a first amended
complaint, a second amended complaint, and a third amended
complaint. Plaintiff Mollik was replaced by putative class
representatives Alan K. Brooks and Electric Drivetrains, LLC. Alan
K. Brooks was subsequently dropped as a putative class
representative.
On October 25, 2019, the company answered the third amended
complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses. On November 5, 2019, Network 1 and Boustead
Securities (together the "Underwriters") filed a cross-complaint
against the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the
underwriting agreement the Company and the Underwriters entered for
the Company's initial public offering (the "Underwriting
Agreement").
On December 10, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the
Underwriters' cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations
and asserting affirmative defenses.
Also on this date, the Company filed a cross-complaint against the
Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Underwriting Agreement.
On January 14, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against
the Underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Underwriting Agreement.
On January 15, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against
the Company seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws and Section 145 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law.
On February 18, 2020 the company filed an answer to Mr. Monfort's
cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses.
ADOMANI said, "We believe that the purported class action lawsuit
is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action."
ADOMANI, Inc. provides zero-emission electric and hybrid drivetrain
systems for integration in new and existing school buses and medium
to heavy-duty commercial fleet vehicles. ADOMANI, Inc. was founded
in 2012 and is headquartered in Corona, California.
ADT INC: Accord Reached in State Court Litigation Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the class
action lawsuit related to the Company's initial public offering are
planning to move in state court for settlement approval and
certification of a class for settlement purposes.
Five substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits
related to the Initial Public Offering (IPO) in January 2018 were
filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and
for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018 and
were consolidated for discovery and trial and entitled In re ADT
Inc. Shareholder Litigation.
The consolidated complaint in that action asserts claims on behalf
of a putative class of shareholders plaintiffs and sought to
represent a class of similarly situated shareholders for alleged
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act").
The complaint alleges that the Company defendants violated the
Securities Act because the registration statement and prospectus
used to effectuate the IPO were false and misleading in that they
allegedly misled investors with respect to litigation involving the
Company, the Company's efforts to protect its intellectual
property, and the competitive pressures faced by the Company.
A similar shareholder class action lawsuit entitled Perdomo v ADT
Inc., also related to the IPO in January 2018, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May
2018.
In September 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle both the state court and the federal court actions.
In connection with the agreement, the plaintiffs in the Perdomo
action voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.
The settlement is being documented, after which the parties plan to
move in state court for settlement approval and certification of a
class for settlement purposes.
ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.
ADT INC: Archer Suit Against Defender Holdings in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit initiated by Teddy Archer against Defender
Holdings, Inc.
In January 2020, the Company acquired Defender Holdings, Inc.,
which is defending against litigation brought by Teddy Archer and
seven other security advisors who claim unpaid overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), breach of contract under state
law in all states, and a violation of state wage-hour laws in
California, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.
The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2018 in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.
During 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as an FLSA
collective action. Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class
for unpaid wages.
The parties are actively engaged in discovery.
ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.
ADT INC: Settlement Reached in Villegas Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a settlement agreement
has been reached in the class action suit entitled, Villegas v.
ADT.
In June 2013, the Company was served with a class action complaint
in California State Court entitled Villegas v. ADT.
In this complaint, the plaintiff asserted that the Company violated
certain provisions of the California Alarm Act and the Los Angeles
Municipal Alarm Ordinance for its alleged failures to obtain alarm
permits for its Los Angeles customers and disclose the alarm permit
fee in its customer contracts.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for putative class members
who were required to pay enhanced false alarm fines as a result of
the Company not obtaining a valid alarm permit at the time of alarm
system installation.
The case was initially dismissed by the trial court and judgment
was entered in the Company's favor in October 2014, which the
plaintiff appealed.
In September 2016, the California Appellate Court reversed and
remanded the case back to the trial court.
In November 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification and certified four subclasses of customers
who received fines from the City of Los Angeles.
The parties reached a settlement agreement in principle in January
2020.
ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.
ADT INC: Trial in Snow Class Suit Set for June 2020
---------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that trial in the class action
suit initiated by John Snow is set for June 2020.
In January 2019, John Snow, a current outside salesperson in
California, filed a complaint in the United States District Court
in the Central District of California alleging violations of the
California Labor Code, as well as pursuant to California's Private
Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA").
Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that he and other employees of
the Company who worked as sales representatives were misclassified
as exempt under the outside salesperson exemption resulting in
unpaid minimum wages and overtime, a failure to provide wage
compliant wage statements, and a failure to timely pay wages during
employment.
Plaintiff also claims he was undercompensated for necessary
business expenses and was retaliated against. Plaintiff seeks to
represent himself and other outside salespeople based in California
for unpaid wages, unpaid business expenses, and penalties under
PAGA.
The parties are actively engaged in discovery with a trial set in
June 2020.
ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Makena-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend class action suits related to Makena.
On November 1, 2019, the company was named as a defendant in a
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri, captioned Barnes v. AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-05088-RK (W.D. Mo.).
Subsequently, other plaintiffs represented by the same law firm
have filed four similar class action lawsuits in other
jurisdictions, captioned Gill v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case
No. 2:19-cv-02681-DDC-JPO (D. Kan., filed Nov. 4, 2019), Faughnan,
et al. v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01394-FJS-ML
(N.D.N.Y, filed Nov. 12, 2019), Zamifrova v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00152-JMV-SCM (D.N.J., filed Jan. 3, 2020)
and Nelson v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-00089-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal., filed Jan. 13, 2020).
The plaintiffs in these actions, on behalf of themselves and
purported state-wide classes of similarly situated consumers,
assert claims for violation of state consumer protection laws and
unjust enrichment based on allegations that the company and/or its
predecessor companies made misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the effectiveness of Makena in connection with the sale
and marketing of that product from 2011 through the present.
AMAG said, "Because these cases are in the earliest stages, we are
currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the
range of potential loss associated with this matter, if any."
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company
developing products that treat iron deficiency anemia in adult
patients. The company is based in
Waltham, Massachusetts.
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Metoyer BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSH METOYER, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICOLD
LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 2020-CH-3243 (Filed March 17, 2020), was
removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 17,
2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02377 to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges that Americold used a timekeeping system that
collected, used, stored and disseminated the Plaintiff's and the
putative Class's biometric identifiers and/or biometric information
without following the requirements of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
AmeriCold is a major temperature controlled warehousing and
transportation company based in Atlanta, Georgia, United
States.[BN]
Americold is represented by:
Jody Kahn Mason, Esq.
Jason A. Selvey, Esq.
Julia S. Wolf, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
150 North Michigan Ave., Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312 787 4949
Facsimile: 312 787 4995
E-mail: Jody.Mason@jacksonlewis.com
Jason.Selvey@jacksonlewis.com
Wolf@jacksonlewis.com
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued by Rahman Over NDMA in Metformin
-------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMED RAHMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-03757-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., April 7, 2020), is a class action
lawsuit regarding Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, and sale
of the generic medication metformin that contains dangerously high
levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic and liver-damaging
impurity.
The Plaintiff contends that Amneal's manufacturing process has
caused metformin to contain dangerously high levels of NDMA.
On March 2, 2020, Valisure, an online pharmacy registered with the
U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and Food & Drug Administration,
detected high levels of NDMA in specific batches of prescription
drug products containing metformin. This included metformin
manufactured by Amneal.
Metformin is a prescription medication that has been sold under
brand names such as Glucophage. Metformin is used to control high
blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes. NDMA is a
semivolatile organic chemical. According to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, NDMA "is a member of N-ni-trosamines, a family
of potent carcinogens." Exposure to NDMA can cause liver damage and
cancer in humans.
The Plaintiff has been taking metformin since 1993. During all
relevant time periods, he was prescribed, purchased and consumed
metformin manufactured by the Defendant.
Amneal manufactures and supplies generic pharmaceuticals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
ltfisher@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
APACHE CORP: Underpays Pipeline Inspectors, Perdue Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
TODD PERDUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APACHE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-00023 (W.D. Tex., April 2, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendants for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a pipeline inspector from
July 2017 to May 2018 and was paid a day rate basis throughout his
employment.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
pipeline inspectors were only compensated a day rate regardless of
the number of hours they worked in a week, despite working more
than 40 hours. Allegedly, Defendant failed to pay the pipeline
inspectors, including Plaintiff, overtime at one-and-one-half times
their regular rates for the past three years.
Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages and other damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and pre- and post- judgment interest.
Apache Corporation is a multi-billion-dollar oil and gas company
with operations in different countries around the world and in
multiple states in the U.S. and builds gas pipelines. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David I. Moulton, Esq.
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713)877-8788
Fax: (713)877-8065
Emails: rburch@brucknerburch.com
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713)352-1100
Fax: (713)352-3300
Emails: mjosephsom@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
APOTHAKER SCIAN: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Santiago"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORMA I. SANTIAGO, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated v. APOTHAKER SCIAN P.C. f/k/a APOTHAKER &
ASSOCIATES, P.C.; DAVID J. APOTHAKER and JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01432-SCM (D.N.J. Filed March 14, 2016), the Hon. Judge
Steven C. Mannion entered an order:
1. certifying the Settlement Class consisting of:
"all natural persons residing in the State of New Jersey,
beginning March 14, 2015 to March 15, 2016, who were sent
a collection letter or sued by Apothaker Scian P.C. f/k/a
Apothaker & Associates, P.C., to collect a store account
that is not a Visa, MasterCard, American Express or
Discover, more than four years after the date of the
consumer's default";
2. directing the parties to implement the plan for direct
mail of Notice to the proposed Settlement Class in the
manner described in the Settlement Agreement;
3. appointing ANGEION GROUP as the Settlement Administrator
and be responsible for administering the Settlement
according to the terms set forth in the Settlement
Agreement and Court Order;
4. directing the Defendants to provide the Settlement
Administrator with the Class List as defined in the
Settlement Agreement;
5. directing the Settlement Administrator within entry of
this Order, to mail the Class Notice approved in the
manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement;
6. scheduling Fairness Hearing on July 23, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.
at the United States Courthouse, District of New Jersey,
50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey; and
7. appointing R. Wolf and Bharati O. Sharma of The Wolf Law
Firm, LLC, and Yongmoon Kim of the Kim Law Firm LLC as
Interim Counsel.
The Court has considered the benefits that the settlement will
confer on the Settlement Class, which is payment of statutory
damages in the amount of $70.00 per each settlement class member.
The cash payment will be directly mailed as a check with no "claims
made" process. Funds from any uncashed checks shall be provided as
a cy pres award to the "Civil Justice Clinic" at Rutgers School of
Law-Newark, Center for Law and Justice.
In the class action complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, when
Defendants sent collection letters and filed lawsuits to collect
debts barred by the four-year statute of limitations of Article of
the Uniform Commercial Code.
Apothaker Scian is a Law Office specializing in Debt Collection in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania.[CC]
ARK WOODWORKS: Lybarger Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Lybarger, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ARK WOODWORKS, INC., and NASSER
HAJISARVESTANI, Case No. 1:20-cv-01112 (D. Colo., April 20,
2020), seeks compensation for the Defendants' violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage of Workers Act,
and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order.
According to the complaint, the Defendants refused to pay the
Plaintiff and their other employees one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for each hour worked beyond forty each workweek
and for each hour worked beyond twelve each workday. The Defendants
thus the FLSA, CMWWA and MWO, because those Acts requires employers
to pay their employees one and one-half times each employee's
regular rate of pay for each hour worked beyond forty each
workweek.
Plaintiff Bradley Lybarger was employed by the Defendants as an
hourly woodworker from February 28, 2020, through March 17, 2020.
Ark Woodworks, Inc. sold and offered for sale a service
(woodworking services) to the consuming public, and generated 50%
or more of its annual dollar volume of business from such
sales.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandt Milstein, Esq.
MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
2400 Broadway, Suite B
Boulder, CO 80304
Phone: 303.440.8780
Fax: 303.957.5754
Email: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Flooring, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
On November 15, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, based on alleged false and/or misleading statements or
omissions made between May 6, 2018 and November 4, 2019.
Armstrong Flooring said, "We cannot predict the duration or outcome
of this suit at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate
the reasonably possible loss arising from this lawsuit. The
Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter."
Armstrong Flooring, Inc. is a leading global producer of resilient
flooring products for use primarily in the construction and
renovation of commercial, residential and institutional buildings.
The company is based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
ASCENA RETAIL: Bid to Nix Amended Consolidated Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 1, 2020, that the defendants are
seeking dismissal of an amended complaint in In re Ascena Retail
Group, Inc. Sec. Litig.
On June 7, 2019, plaintiff James Newman commenced a federal
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, naming Ascena Retail Group, Inc. and
certain of ascena's current and former officers and directors as
defendants.
The Newman complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to
the Company's goodwill impairment accounting and statements
regarding the success of the 2015 purchase of ANN and the overall
performance and expected growth of the ANN brands.
Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers
of ascena securities between September 16, 2015 and June 8, 2017
(the proposed "Class Period").
On July 2, 2019, a second lawsuit was filed by Michaella
Corporation. The Michaella complaint is substantially similar to
the Newman complaint.
Both the Michaella complaint and the Newman complaint name the same
defendants, allege the same proposed class period, and challenge
the same categories of public statements under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
On August 6, 2019, two potential lead plaintiffs (Joel Patterson
and Michaella Corporation) filed motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Newman and Michaella actions, and to consolidate
both actions.
On August 23, 2019, the Court consolidated the two actions as In re
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. Sec. Litig. and appointed Patterson and
Michaella Corporation as joint lead-plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs").
The Lead Plaintiffs' filed an amended complaint on November 21,
2019, which shortened the class period. Defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint on February 7, 2020.
Defendants believe they have strong defenses to these claims. The
range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time.
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. is a holding company for a national chain
of women's apparel specialty stores. The Company's stores operate
nationwide and in the District of Columbia. The company is based in
Mahwah, New Jersey.
ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Nix "Huang"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is
awaiting the court's decision on its motion to dismiss the class
action suit entitled, Huang v. Depomed et al., No.
4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D. Cal.
On August 23, 2017, the Company, its current chief executive
officer and president, its former chief executive officer and
president, and its former chief financial officer were named as
defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(the District Court).
The action (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D.
Cal.) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its
business, compliance, and operational policies and practices
concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and
contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations
affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages
and other relief. In an amended complaint filed on February 6,
2018, the lead plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the
Depomed Investor Group), which seeks to represent a class
consisting of all purchasers of Company common stock between July
29, 2015 and August 6, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out
of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the
same individuals as were involved in the original complaint.
The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on April 9, 2018. On March 18, 2019, the District
Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, and the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 2, 2019.
The second amended complaint asserted the same claims arising out
of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the
same individuals as were involved in the original complaint.
The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on June 17, 2019. The lead plaintiff filed
an opposition to the motion on August 1, 2019. The Company and the
individuals filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on
August 30, 2019.
The District Court held oral argument on December 18, 2019.
Assertio said, "The Company believes that the action is without
merit and intends to contest it vigorously."
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
provides medicines in neurology, orphan, and specialty areas in the
United States. The company was formerly known as Depomed Inc. and
changed its name to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. in August 2018.
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.
ASSET PLUS: Uses COVID-19 Pandemic to Steal Funds, Corinti Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON CORINTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ASSET PLUS CORPORATION, Case No. 4:20-cv-00173-MW-MAF
(N.D. Fla., April 7, 2020), alleges that the Defendant is
attempting to use the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic as a
profiteering vehicle to steal college funds from parents and their
children throughout Florida.
The case is a class action brought on behalf of all people, who
paid the costs of room and board and/or attendant service fees for
the Spring 2020 academic semester at private dormitories throughout
the State of Florida, each managed by the Defendant.
In March 2020, Florida colleges and universities announced that,
because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all classes would be moved
online for the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester. Students, who
lived in on-campus housing, were told they had to move out or were
strongly encouraged to do so, such that they had no meaningful
choice but to comply.
The Plaintiff contends that despite stay-at-home orders and "social
distancing" directives, the Defendant has refused to refund moneys
dedicated to campus living, which is effectively closed down. She
adds that the Defendant is callously telling parents their children
not being at the dorm during this world-wide pandemic is similar to
the kids going on "spring-break." The Plaintiff avers that the
Defendant admits their motivation for their position is money,
stating they will not refund monies because they have expenses,
such as "property taxes." If the Defendant had their way, the
students would remain on top of each other in their crowded dorms,
which would obviously exacerbate the spread of COVID-19, the
Plaintiff says.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief,
and for any available legal remedies resulting from Defendant's
illegal, unfair, or deceptive conduct related to retaining the
costs of room, board, and fees paid by Plaintiffs and the other
Class members.
The Defendant is a property management company for college
campuses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
Heather H. Jones, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
4030 Henderson Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33629
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
- and -
John W. Barrett, Esq.
Raymond S. Franks, II, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capital Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
E-mail: JBarrett@baileyglasser.com
rfranks@baileyglasser.com
AVON PRODUCTS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit entitled, In re Avon Products, Inc.
Securities Litigation
On February 14, 2019, a purported shareholder's class action
complaint (Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420)
was filed in the USDC for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain former officers of the Company.
On June 3, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and class
counsel.
The complaint was subsequently amended on June 28, 2019 and
recaptioned "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation" on
July 8, 2019. On July 24, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a further
amended complaint.
The amended complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all purchasers or acquirers of Avon common stock
between January 21, 2016 and November 1, 2017, inclusive.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and alleged market manipulation with respect
to, among other things, changes made to Avon's credit terms for
Representatives in Brazil.
On July 26, 2019, Avon and the individual defendants filed a motion
to dismiss. On November 18, 2019, the court denied that motion.
Accordingly, on December 16, 2019, Avon and the individual
defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. On February
14, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery.
Avon has provided notice of this matter to the Company's insurers.
Avon said, "In light of the early stage of the litigation, we are
unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to
assess the likelihood of loss or to make a reasonable estimate of
the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome."
Avon Products, Inc. manufactures and markets beauty and related
products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, south Latin America,
North Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. The company was founded
in 1886 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Freedman Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that oral arguments were
held in the putative class action suit entitled, Freedman v.
magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al., Case 9-17-cv-80940, and the Company
is awaiting the court's decision.
On November 9, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "magicJack Merger Agreement") with B. R. Acquisition
Ltd., an Israeli corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company ("Merger Sub"), and magicJack VocalTec Ltd., an Israeli
corporation ("magicJack"), pursuant to which Merger Sub would merge
with and into magicJack, with magicJack continuing as the surviving
corporation and as an indirect subsidiary of the Company.
On August 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit titled Freedman
v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al., Case 9-17-cv-80940, was filed
against magicJack and its Board of Directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No:
9:17-cv-80940-RLR).
Oral arguments were held on for January 17, 2020 and the Company is
awaiting the court's decision.
B. Riley said, "The Company cannot estimate the amount of potential
liability, if any, that could arise from this matter."
B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
collaborative financial services and solutions in North America,
Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments:
Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal,
and Principal Investments - United Online and magicJack. The
company was formerly known as Great American Group, Inc. and
changed its name to B. Riley Financial, Inc. in November 2014. B.
Riley Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Gaynor Suit Against MLV & Co. Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that MLV & Co. continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Gaynor v. Miller et al.
On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016
naming MLV & Co. ("MLV"), a broker-dealer subsidiary of B. Riley
FBR, Inc. (FBR), as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits
alleging claims under the Securities Act, in connection with the
offerings of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller") have been
consolidated.
The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al.,
is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints,
continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13,
2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17,
2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged
aggregate offering price of approximately $151,000.
Court ordered mediation before a federal magistrate took place on
August 6, 2019, with no resolution. In December 2019, the Court
lifted the stay on the proceedings (pending mediation) and remanded
the case to state court.
B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
collaborative financial services and solutions in North America,
Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments:
Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal,
and Principal Investments - United Online and magicJack. The
company was formerly known as Great American Group, Inc. and
changed its name to B. Riley Financial, Inc. in November 2014. B.
Riley Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.
BABY BREZZA: Couple Hits Mixers' Watery Infant Formula
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Nahai and Michael Soter v. Baby Brezza Enterprises LLC and
The Betesh Group, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03712 (D. N.J., April
6, 2020), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees as a result of non-payment of overtime premiums pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Baby Brezza manufactures, markets, warrants and sells machines that
mix baby formula powder with water and automatically prepare liquid
baby formula. Baby Brezza Enterprises LLC is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of The Betesh Group.
Ashley Nahai and Michael Soter are a married couple who bought a
Baby Brezza Formula Pro Advanced for their baby girl. They claim
that the machine produces formula that is too watery making it
dangerous to infants' digestive systems. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
One Financial Center
650 S. Shackleford Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (479) 880-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
BANCO SANTANDER: Required by Court to Implement New Target Program
------------------------------------------------------------------
Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is
required to implement a new experimental target program under the
terms provided for in the decision from January 1, 2020.
The labor Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Publico
Federal) filed a class action against Santander Brasil alleging
that the company's management of its employees is in appropriate.
Specifically, the class action alleges that the company applies
constant pressure to meet abusive, excessive and continuously
increased goals, make excessive and inappropriate demands, impose
excessive workloads resulting in physical and psychological strain,
make constant threats of dismissal for failure to meet targets,
have a staff too small to deal with the existing workload, run an
organizational model based on stress and humiliation, and that, as
a result, the company had allegedly caused irreparable damage to
employees' physical and mental health as a result of which the
public social security system has suffered losses of more than R$90
million due to the 7,677 accident-related and social security
benefits granted to employees from 2010 to 2015.
The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office's claim demands that the
company refrains from subjecting employees to abusive targets, to
reduce the target levels, refrain from increasing targets by more
than 10% per year, institute a quarterly targeting system, and
refrain from adopting targets for operational areas.
There is also a claim for the payment of indemnity for collective
moral damages in an amount not below R$460 million and that the
company be prohibited from contracting with the government for 10
years. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office is also demanding
that a fine of R$500 thousand be set for any breach by the company
of the obligations imposed on the company following the judgment.
The lower court ruling prohibited submitting employees to abusive
targets. It also determined that the targets should be reviewed
only annually and their annual variation should be subject to
collective bargaining between Santander Brasil and the unions.
The ruling also prohibited setting targets for employees in the
back office and control departments and required payment of
indemnity for collective moral damages in the amount of R$274.4
million, in addition to imposition of certain daily fines.
Finally, the ruling determined that the company is required to
implement a new experimental target program under the terms
provided for in the decision from January 1, 2020.
Banco Santander said, "We estimate the risk of loss as remote."
Headquartered in Sao Paolo, Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A. provides
banking products and services in Brazil and internationally.
BLUE LINE: Pontigo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Didier del Pontigo, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Blue Line Transport, Inc., a for profit Florida
corporation, and Roberto Acuna, individually, Case No.
1:20-cv-21643-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2020), is brought to
recover money damages for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
wages, and retaliation under the Florida common law and statutes
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff work or worked for a flat
rate weekly salary without regard to the number of hours worked. In
fact, the Defendant does not keep time-keeping records for hours
worked by the Plaintiff. The Defendant required that the Plaintiff
and certain other employees "incorporate" so that the Defendant
might pay them as though they were not employees at all, even when
said employees were required to work a schedule, and well in excess
of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff was not always paid his
salary when due or on the regularly scheduled payday.
Plaintiff Didier del Pontigo worked as a dispatcher for the
Defendant.
Blue Line Transport, Inc., is a trucking company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
Miami, FL 33143
Phone: 305-665-9211
Fax: 305-328-4842
Email: afs@laborlawfla.com
BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Cervantes Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Cervantes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bridgestone Retail Operations,
LLC, Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02164 (N.D. Ill., April 6, 2020), seeks
unpaid overtime compensation, statutory interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Cervantes was employed at Bridgestones' Clarksville location from
February 8, 2018 to May 2019 as technician. He claims to have
rendered fifty to sixty hours per week, all without overtime pay
for hours over 40, asserts the complaint.
Bridgestone Retail Operations operates one of the largest network
of company-owned automotive service providers in the world, with
more than 2,200 tire and vehicle service centers across the United
States. Bridgestone Americas, Inc. is the U.S. subsidiary of
Bridgestone Corporation. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael I. Leonard, Esq.
Derek J. Meyer, Esq.
Rebeca Chacko, Esq.
LEONARDMEYER LLP
120 North LaSalle St., Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 380-6659
Fax: (312) 264-0671
Email: mleonard@leonardmeyerllp.com
BUREAU OF PRISONS: Williams Suit Asks Court to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as THURMAN WILLIAMS, et al. v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Case 1:20-cv-00890-RC (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class consisting of:
"all persons detained or to be detained at Hope Village";
and
2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class.
The Plaintiffs challenge Defendant' reckless and deliberately
indifferent treatment of the people in their custody and care at
the Hope Village halfway house. As alleged in the complaint, the
Defendants are failing to take measures necessary to protect the
health, safety, and lives of prisoners at Hope Village whom the
Defendants have crammed into small confined spaces, in violation of
recent government guidance and orders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is the federal agency under the
Department of Justice responsible for the care, custody, and
control of incarcerated individuals.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin Metz, Esq.
Drew Wisniewski, Esq.
Clayton LaForge, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-2200
E-mail: kevin.metz@lw.com
drew.wisniewski@lw.com
clayton.laforge@lw.com
- and -
Jonathan Smith, Esq.
Emily Gunston, Esq.
Lyndsay A. Niles, Esq.
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
CIVIL R GHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS
700 14th Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 319-1000
E-mail: Emily_Gunston@washlaw.org
jonathan_smith@washlaw.org
lyndsay_niles@washlaw.org
- and -
Scott Michelman, Esq.
Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
Michael Perloff, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
915 Fifteenth Street NW, Second Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 457-0800
E-mail: artspitzer@gmail.com
smichelman@acludc.org
mperloff@acludc.org
CARGO AIRPORT: Settlement in Oladipo Suit Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BABATUNDE OLADIPO v. CARGO
AIRPORT SERVICES USA, LLC, Case No. 16 CV 6165 (CLP) (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed September 21, 2016), the Hon. Judge Cheryl L. Pollak entered
an order:
1. granting final approval of the Class Settlement;
2. awarding Class Counsel attorneys' fees and costs as
requested;
3. approving the Administrator's fee, and approving the
service award;
4. directing the parties to submit a status report confirming
that the checks have been distributed to the class no
later than May 4, 2020; and
5. instructing the parties to submit a letter to the Court
requesting a telephone conference as soon as possible so
that the Court and parties can discuss the timeline for
distributing the settlement award, if the administrator is
unable to distribute the awards within 30 days; and
6. directing the Clerk to send copies of the Memorandum and
Order to the parties either electronically through the
Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system or by mail.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff also requests a service award for
named plaintiff Babatunde Oladipo. The Plaintiff requests this
service award in recognition of the named plaintiff's services to
the Class, as Mr. Oladipo 'played an active role during the
litigation,' including attending three mediation sessions. The
Plaintiff notes that such service awards are common in this
Circuit. In its preliminary Order, this Court found that the
proposed $5,000 service award for Mr. Oladipo was reasonable.
Having observed Mr. Oladipo's active role in the litigation, the
Court continues to find that the service award is reasonable.
Finally, as stated during the Fairness Hearing and as provided in
the proposed Order, the plaintiff seeks an administrator's fee of
$10,816.00 as compensation for the services of Claims Administrator
Simpluris. In its preliminary Order, this Court found that the
administrator's fee was reasonable. Based on its experience with
similar settlements, the Court finds the $10,816.00 fee to be
reasonable."
On July 2, 2019, the Court entered an Order in this case granting
preliminary approval of the Class Settlement.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay its
employees proper straight time and overtime wages, in violation of
the New York Labor Law.[CC]
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Continues to Defend Tennessee Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re CBL &
Associates Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation,
1:19-cv-00149-JRG-CHS.
The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in three putative securities class action
lawsuits (collectively, the "Securities Class Action Litigation"),
each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during a specified
period of time.
The first such lawsuit, captioned Paskowitz v. CBL & Associates
Properties, Inc., et al., 1:19-cv-00149-JRG-CHS, was filed on May
17, 2019, and asserts claims on behalf of persons or entities that
purchased CBL securities between November 8, 2017 and March 26,
2019, inclusive.
The second such lawsuit, captioned Williams v. CBL & Associates
Properties, Inc., et al., 1:19-cv-00181, was filed on June 21,
2019, and asserts claims on behalf of persons or entities that
purchased CBL securities between April 29, 2016 and March 26, 2019,
inclusive.
The third such lawsuit, captioned Merelles v. CBL & Associates
Properties, Inc., et al. , 1:19-CV-00193, was filed on July 2,
2019, and asserts claims on behalf of persons or entities that
purchased CBL securities between July 29, 2014 and March 26, 2019.
The Court consolidated these cases on July 17, 2019, under the
caption In re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Securities
Litigation , 1:19-cv-00149-JRG-CHS.
After plaintiff Laurence Paskowitz voluntarily dismissed his case
on July 25, 2019, the Court re-consolidated the two remaining cases
under the caption In re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc.
Securities Litigation , 1:19-cv-00181-JRG-CHS, on August 2, 2019.
On September 26, 2019, the Merelles complaint was voluntarily
dismissed.
The complaints filed in the Securities Class Action Litigation
allege violations of the securities laws, including, among other
things, that the defendants made certain materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
contingent liabilities, business, operations, and prospects during
the periods of time specified above. The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other
relief, but have not specified the amount of damages sought.
CBL & Associates said, "The outcome of these legal proceedings
cannot be predicted with certainty."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a self managed and self
administered real estate investment trust. The Company owns
regional shopping malls and community shopping centers in the
United States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
CENTENNIAL RESOURCE: Maillet Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Maillet, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-00028 (W.D. Tex., April 20, 2020), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other workers
like him regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours
each week. But these workers never received overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of
paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant paid the
Plaintiff a daily rate with no overtime pay.
Plaintiff Maillet performed work for the Defendant as a Mud
Engineer from July 2016 until January 2019.
Centennial Resource Development, Inc., is an oil and natural gas
company focused on the development of unconventional oil and
associated liquids-rich natural gas reserves in the Permian
Basin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CHASE BANK: Ryan M. Kull Sues Over Unfair Processing of PPP Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan M. Kull Licensed Clinical Social Work LCC, a New York limited
liability company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. CHASE BANK USA, N.A., a New York Corporation, JP MORGAN
CHASE AND CO., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03138 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the New York State General Business Law due to
their deceptive and misleading business practices in processing
Paycheck Protection Program applications.
The Plaintiff alleges that JP Morgan Chase and CHASE BANK have,
once again, prioritized corporate greed at the expense of their
small business customers. Rather than processing Paycheck
Protection Program ("PPP") applications on a first-come,
first-served basis as required by the rules governing that program,
CHASE BANK prioritized loan applications seeking higher loan
amounts because processing those applications first generated
larger loan origination fees for the banks.
Making matters worse, CHASE BANK concealed from the public that it
was reshuffling the PPP applications it received and prioritizing
the applications that would make the bank the most money, according
to the complaint. As a result, thousands of small
businesses--including the Plaintiff--trusted that Chase Bank would
process the applications on a first come, first served basis. Had
CHASE BANK been honest, small businesses could have (and would
have) submitted their PPP applications to other financial
institutions that were processing applications on a first-come,
first-served basis.
As a result of CHASE BANK's dishonest and deplorable behavior,
however, thousands of small businesses that were entitled to loans
under the PPP were left with nothing because CHASE BANK chose to
maximize its loan origination fees rather than comply with the
rules of the program and serve the needs of its small business
customers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a small business that provides psychotherapy and
mental health services, does education and training on mental
health issues, and is involved in mental health research.
CHASE BANK USA, N.A., is a corporation established under the laws
of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dylan Ruga, Esq.
David M. Angeloff, Esq.
STALWART LAW GROUP
41 East 11th Street, 11th Fl.
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 651-9070
Email: dylan@stalwartlaw.com
david@stalwartlaw.com
CHINA: Sued by Aharon and Medical Workers Over Hoarding of PPE
--------------------------------------------------------------
MORIAH AHARON; JORDAN G. KUPPINGER, M.D.; DAMON J. DETESO, M.D.;
ROSANNA CARUSO; and CHRISTOPHER PAYTON, each on behalf of
themselves, and all those similarly situated v. CHINESE COMMUNIST
PARTY; and PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, Case No. 9:20-cv-80604-RKA
(S.D. Fla., April 7, 2020), asserts claims for damages suffered by
doctors, nurses, paramedics, emergency medical technician and other
front-line medical care workers in the United States and State of
Florida as a result of the Defendants hoarding and stockpiling of
personal protective equipment, and forbidding factories located in
China, including those owned by U.S. corporations, from exporting
PPE to the United States.
The Plaintiffs contend that the conduct of the Defendants has
caused injury and incalculable harm to the Plaintiffs and putative
class members, and such injury and harm will only multiply in
coming days and weeks. They add that the Defendants' conduct has
caused and will continue to cause personal injuries and deaths, as
well as other damages.
According to the complaint, the world is suffering the devastating
impacts of the Coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic, with worldwide cases
surpassing the 1.3 million mark, and the exponentially rising death
toll in the United States alone surpassing 10,000 as of April 6,
2020. The virus's epicenter in late 2019 was Wuhan, China, and
because of the Defendants' deliberate and egregious acts of
concealment for their economic self-interest, COVID-19 quickly
spread throughout Asia, Europe and, North America.
The Plaintiffs are medical workers. Two of the named Plaintiffs
have tested positive for COVID-19, while the others are awaiting
results. The Putative class members are those individuals and
entities similarly situated to the Named Plaintiffs, and will
number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
The Communist Party of China is the founding and ruling political
party of the People's Republic of China and the second largest
political party in the world. China is a country in East Asia.
China is the world's most populous country, with a population of
around 1.428 billion in 2017.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew T. Moore, Esq.
Vincent J. Duffy, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF
BERMAN & BERMAN, P.A.
P.O. Box 272789
Boca Raton, FL 33427
Telephone: (561) 826-5200
Facsimile: (561) 826-5201
E-mail: mmoore@thebermanlawgroup.com
vduffy@thebermanlawgroup.com
CHUBB LTD: Breaches Duty Over COVID-19 Outbreak, Truhaven Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Truhaven Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Fiorino Ristorante, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. CHUBB LTD, and
INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Case No.
2:20-cv-04586-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., April 20, 2020), is brought against
Defendants for their breach of their contractual obligation under
the Plaintiff's common all-risk commercial property insurance
policies.
The Policies are supposed to indemnify the Plaintiff for business
losses and extra expenses, and related losses resulting from
actions taken by civil authorities to stop the human to human and
surface to human spread of the COVID-19 outbreak, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Defendants, and most insurance companies, who have issued
all-risk commercial property insurance policies with business
interruption coverage, are denying the obligation to pay for
business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by
policyholders for the physical loss and damage to the insured
property from measures put in place by the civil authorities to
stop the spread of COVID-19 among the population, the Plaintiff
asserts.
This action seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil
authorities to stop the spread of the outbreak triggers coverage,
has caused physical property loss and damage to the insured
property, provides coverage for future civil authority orders that
result in future suspensions or curtailments of business
operations, and finds that Defendants are liable for the losses
suffered by policyholders.
The Plaintiff has paid the policy premiums to Chubb specifically to
provide coverages for coverage of lost business income and extra
expenses in the event of an involuntary business interruption. The
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed class of
policyholders who paid premiums in exchange for an all-risk
commercial property insurance policy that included lost business
income and extra expense coverage.
Plaintiff Fiorino Ristorante is a dine-in restaurant in Summit, New
Jersey.
Chubb Ltd is a Swiss corporation with its principal place of
business in Zurich, Switzerland. The Company owns subsidiaries,
directly and indirectly, that issue, among other things, property
insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
- and –
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 367-7100
- and -
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Bradley M. Beall, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561/750-3000
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Phone: (212) 584-0700
CITY OF GLASGOW, KY: Boyd Sues Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Glasgow, et
al. The case is styled as Robert Boyd, all similarly situated
individuals v. City of Glasgow; Aaron Bennett, Barren County
Jailer; John Doe; Barren County Sheriff, Case No. 1:20-cv-00069-GNS
(W.D. Ky., April 20, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Glasgow is a home rule-class city in Barren County, Kentucky,
United States. It is the seat of its county. The population was
14,028 at the 2010 U.S. census.
The Plaintiff, at Barren County Detention Center, in Glasgow,
Kentucky, appears pro se.[BN]
CLEARVIEW AI: Burke Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN BURKE and JAMES
POMERENE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC., a Delaware Corporation; HOAN
TON-THAT, an Individual; RICHARD SCHWARTZ, an Individual; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20CV0370 BAS MSB (Filed Feb. 27,
2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on April 17, 2020.
The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-03104-UA to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants collect, generate, and
sell consumers' biometric information without their consent in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that Clearview's automated scraping of images
violates the policies of websites like Facebook and Twitter, the
latter of which specifically prohibits scraping to build facial
recognition databases. Unlawfully, the Plaintiffs say, the
Defendants stored billions of scraped images of faces in
Clearview's database, used its facial recognition software to
generate biometric information (aka Faceprint) to match the face to
identifiable information, and then sold access to the database to
third-party entities and agencies for commercial gain.
Clearview is an American technology company that provides facial
recognition software, which they claim is marketed primarily for
law enforcement agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amber L. Eck, Esq.
Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
Ian Pike, Esq.
HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 2050
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-342-8000
Facsimile: 619-342-7878
E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com
alreenh@haelaw.com
aarono@haelaw.com
ianp@haelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kate Spelman, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone (213) 239-2246
E-mail: kspelman@jenner.com
CLECO CORP: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a merger-related litigation.
On April 13, 2016, Cleco Holdings completed its merger with Merger
Sub whereby Merger Sub merged with and into Cleco Corporation, with
Cleco Corporation surviving the 2016 Merger, and Cleco Corporation
converting to a limited liability company and changing its name to
Cleco Holdings, as a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Cleco Group
and an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Cleco Partners.
In connection with the 2016 Merger, four actions were filed in the
9th Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three
actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish,
Louisiana.
The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things,
that the members of Cleco Corporation’s Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting
an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the 2016 Merger
at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to
disclose material information about the 2016 Merger.
The petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation,
Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco
Partners either aided and abetted or entered into a civil
conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The
petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which
includes attorneys' fees and expenses.
The four actions filed in the 9th Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:
-- Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed
October 27, 2014),
-- Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,417C (filed October 30, 2014),
-- Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5,
2014), and
-- L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).
In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for
a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was
granted in November 2014. In December 2014, the Court consolidated
the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel.
Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the
Consolidated Amended Petition).
The consolidated action named Cleco Corporation, its directors,
Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated
Amended Petition alleged, among other things, that Cleco
Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's
shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger
Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately,
failing to structure a process through which shareholder value
would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts
of interest, and failing to disclose material information about the
2016 Merger.
The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that all
defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty.
Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended
Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended
Petition.
The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows:
-- Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November
7, 2014),
-- Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No.
2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and
-- Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November
21, 2014).
Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, BCI, and John Hancock
Financial as defendants.
The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie
Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. In December 2014,
the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class Action
Petition for Damages.
Each petition alleged, among other things, that the members of
Cleco Corporation’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement
because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to
structure a process through which shareholder value would be
maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of
interest.
The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
disclose material information about the 2016 Merger.
Each petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger
Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and
abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. In December
2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each
action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in
Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the 9th Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed.
Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed
a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish
and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.
In January 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the 9th Judicial District
Court for Rapides Parish.
In February 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also
consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so
they could be transferred to the 9th Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish.
In February 2015, the 9th Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed
by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the
shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following
the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. In June 2015,
three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended
Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition.
This will be considered according to a schedule established by the
9th Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed
exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition in July 2015.
In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and
Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified
Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively. The
fourth petition eliminated the request for preliminary and
permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer
as a defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the
amended Petition.
A hearing was held in September 2016 and the District Court granted
the exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims asserted by
the former shareholders. The plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal. The
Third Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in the case in
September 2017.
In December 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order
reversing and remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.
In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme
Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's
decision. The writ was denied in March 2018 and the parties are
engaged in discovery in the District Court.
In November 2018, Cleco filed exceptions of no cause of action and
res judicata, seeking to dismiss all claims. The District Court
denied the exceptions on January 14, 2019.
A hearing on the plaintiff's request for certification of a class
was scheduled for August 26, 2019; however, prior to the hearing,
the parties reached an agreement to certify a limited class.
Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action
are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding
company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its
subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns
nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and
serves approximately 291,000 customers in Louisiana through its
retail business; and supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and
Mississippi. The company was formerly known as Cleco Corporation
and changed its name to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC in April 2016.
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was founded in 1934 and is based in
Pineville, Louisiana.
CLIENT SERVICES: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in Hahn Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN HAHN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC.
and CHASE BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-00568-LA (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification
in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic
class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case
from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting
to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Still Defends ERISA Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company continues to face a class action alleging
ERISA violation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019.
In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the
Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the
"Plan") did not comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act was filed against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. This action has been certified as a class action. The
relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. The Company is
contesting this action vigorously.
The Company said, "Since the amount of any potential loss from this
case currently cannot be reasonably estimated, the range of
reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities
disclosed above does not include any amount relating to the case."
Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
COOPER COMPANIES: Settlement in Contact Lens Suit Finally Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the Court has issued
an order providing final approval of the settlement and dismissing
CooperVision from the class action.
Since March 2015, over 50 putative class action complaints were
filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens
manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral
Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each
other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices
at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc.,
other contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in
various courts around the United States.
In June 2015, all of the class action cases were consolidated and
transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.
In August 2017, CooperVision entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs, without any admission of liability, to settle
all claims against CooperVision.
In July 2018, the Court approved the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, and the Company paid the
$3.0 million settlement amount into an escrow account.
In March 2020, the Court issued an order providing final approval
of the settlement and dismissing CooperVision from the class
action.
The Cooper Companies, Inc. operates as a medical device company
worldwide. It operates through CooperVision and CooperSurgical
business units. The Cooper Companies, Inc. was founded in 1980 and
is headquartered in Pleasanton, California.
CREDIT FIRST: Ebanks Sues in N.D. Ohio Alleging Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit First National
Association. The case is styled as Virginia Y. Ebanks,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Credit First National Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-00834 (N.D.
Ohio, April 17, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act/Junk Fax Prevention Act.
Credit First National Association (CFNA) provides consumer credit
cards for automotive dealerships and retailers nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
CROWN CASTLE: Facing Securities Class Suits
-------------------------------------------
Crown Castle International Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is
defending against putative securities class action suits, initiated
by investors that purchased or otherwise acquired stock of the
Company between February 26, 2018 and February 26, 2020.
Putative securities class action suits have been filed against the
Company on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise acquired
stock of the Company between February 26, 2018 and February 26,
2020.
The allegations relate to allegedly false or misleading statements
or other failures to disclose information about the Company's
business, operations and prospects.
The complaints seek money damages and the award of plaintiffs'
costs and expenses incurred in the respective class action.
The Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an
outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.
The Company believes these class action suits are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously.
Crown Castle International Corp. owns, operates and leases shared
wireless infrastructure, including towers and other structures like
rooftops and small cell networks supported by fiber. The
Houston-based Company's wireless infrastructure is
geographically dispersed throughout the U.S., including Puerto
Rico. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
DAVITA INC: Still Faces Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita Inc. continues to defend itself in the Peace Officers'
Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia Securities Class Action Civil
Suit, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
On February 1, 2017, the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund
of Georgia filed a putative federal securities class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against the Company and certain executives. The complaint covers
the time period of August 2015 to October 2016 and alleges,
generally, that the Company and its executives violated federal
securities laws concerning the Company's financial results and
revenue derived from patients who received charitable premium
assistance from an industry-funded non-profit organization. The
complaint further alleges that the process by which patients
obtained commercial insurance and received charitable premium
assistance was improper and "created a false impression of DaVita's
business and operational status and future growth prospects."
In November 2017, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and an
amended complaint was filed on January 12, 2018.
On March 27, 2018, the Company and various individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss.
On March 28, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado denied the motion to dismiss. The Company answered the
complaint on May 28, 2019.
DaVita Inc. said, "The Company disputes these allegations and
intends to defend this action accordingly."
DaVita Inc. provides kidney dialysis services for patients
suffering from chronic kidney failure or end stage renal disease
(ESRD). The company operates kidney dialysis centers and provides
related lab services in outpatient dialysis centers. The company
was formerly known as DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. and changed
its name to DaVita Inc. in September 2016. DaVita Inc. was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.
DCM SERVICES: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in Zurakov Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CINDY ZURAKOV, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DCM SERVICES,
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00570-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a
"placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent
against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants
sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a
decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named
plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not
classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
DIALYSIS CARE: Smith Sues Over Violations of FLSA, IMWL and IWPCA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawntia Smith, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. DIALYSIS CARE CENTER
OLYMPIA FIELDS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; DIALYSIS
CARE CENTER HOLDINGS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND
STEPHANIE SHUMATE, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02429 (N.D. Ill.,
April 20, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that she worked hours in excess of 40 in a
workweek, including work that was not recorded or accounted for by
the Defendants' time keeping system and, in work weeks in which she
worked in excess of forty hours including the work off the clock,
was denied time and one-half compensation for all such hours.
Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' management
employees altered and reduced the electronic timesheets of the
Plaintiff, which resulted in non-payment of earned wages and
overtime wages, in order to avoid the obligations imposed by the
federal and state laws.
The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly "dialysis technician," who
performed duties associated with providing and assisting patients
with dialysis treatment.
DIALYSIS CARE CENTER OLYMPIA FIELDS LLC provides dialysis services
and treatments for patients.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 853-1450
DISCOVER ENTERTAINMENT: Dancers Sue Over Illegal Tip Pool
---------------------------------------------------------
Beatrice Lopez and Chantell Perez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Discover
Entertainment, Inc., Long Kim Huot, Tawny Hout, Andy So, Doe
Managers 1-3 and Does 4-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-03199, (C.D. Cal., April 7, 2020) seeks to recover all tips
kept by the employer, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’
fees and costs pursuant to the the Fair Labor Standards Act and
California labor laws.
Defendants operate as Synn Gentlemen's Club, an adult-oriented
entertainment facility located at 15619 Valley Boulevard, City of
Industry, California, where Plaintiffs worked as dancers. They were
compensated exclusively through tips from customers. However,
Plaintiffs were required to share their tips with other non-service
employees who do not customarily receive tips, including the
managers, disc jockeys and the bouncers, thus rendering their pay
below the mandated minimum wage. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Fax: (310) 507-7906
Email: jacob@kristensenlaw.com
john@kristensenlaw.com
jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Arkansas Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a purported
class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Garland County,
Arkansas, remains pending.
In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center.
The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was
no other activity in the case until May 2017.
At that time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting new
causes of action.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
statutory and contractual obligations to the patients of the Center
over a multi-year period by failing to meet minimum staffing
requirements, failing to otherwise adequately staff the Center and
failing to provide a clean and safe living environment in the
Center.
The Company has filed an answer to the amended complaint denying
plaintiffs' allegations and has asked the Court to dismiss the new
causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the
Company was prejudiced by plaintiff's long delay in filing the
amended complaint.
The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the
lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified
by the court as a class action.
The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care
services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents
primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States.
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
based in Brentwood, Tennessee.
DONALD NUNCKEL: Her Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Age Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nam Su Her, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Donald Nuckel & Co., Inc., Donald Nuckel, and Miyoung Chung,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04581 (D.N.J., April 20, 2020), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime wages and all available relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
The Plaintiff also asserts claims of discrimination in employment
on the basis of age, pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination.
According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice that denied maintenance workers the appropriate overtime
compensation pursuant to the FLSA and the NJWHL for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants also maintained a
policy and practice of paying maintenance workers, who were over 40
years of age, a lower hourly wage than the hourly wage paid to
maintenance workers, who were 40 years of age or younger, despite
the fact that the maintenance workers had the same or similar job
duties and performed the same or similar job functions.
The Plaintiff's age was in excess of 40 years old, and was employed
as a painter by the Defendants from September 2015 to May 2019.
The Defendants own, develop and manage real estate in New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael K. Chong, Esq
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL K. CHONG, LLC
2 Executive Drive, Suite 240
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Phone: (201) 947-5200
Email: MKC@mkclawgroup.com
EL POLLO: Class Action Settlement Formally Approved
---------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court has
approved the settlement in the class action suits entitled, Elliott
Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al (Case No.
30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC), Martha Perez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc.
(Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC624001), Maria Vega, et al.
v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
BC649719), and Gonzalez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles
Superior Court Case No. BC712867).
On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco,
Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) (the "Olvera
Action") on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly
employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of
California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and
failure to provide itemized wage statements.
The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement
of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific
amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint.
The court recently certified two classes of plaintiffs - one class
encompasses restaurant employees who were not provided proper rest
breaks because they were not allowed to leave the premises during
their breaks and the other class encompasses restaurant employees
who were required to wait at the restaurant after they finished
working for the night until the manager set the alarm for safety
purposes.
The parties reached a settlement in principle on January 24, 2019
of all claims brought on behalf of the 32,000+ putative class
members in the Olvera Action, as well as all claims for failure to
pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest
breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements brought in
the class actions captioned Martha Perez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc.
(Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC624001), Maria Vega, et al.
v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
BC649719), and Gonzalez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles
Superior Court Case No. BC712867).
The settlement reached in principle in the Olvera, Perez, Vega, and
Gonzalez actions resolves all potential claims from April 12, 2010
through April 1, 2019 El Pollo Loco restaurant employees may have
against El Pollo Loco for failure to pay for all compensation owed,
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage
statements, among other wage and hour related claims.
A $16.3 million accrual of an expected settlement amount related to
this matter was recorded as of December 26, 2018, and the court
formally approved the settlement on January 31, 2020.
Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are
commonly filed against California employers.
The Company fully expects to have to defend against similar
lawsuits in the future.
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary El Pollo Loco,
Inc., develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service
restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name. The company was formerly
known as Chicken Acquisition Corp. and changed its name to El Pollo
Loco Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California.
ENERGY TRANSFER: ACERS Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer LP (ET) is facing a federal securities class action
suit filed by Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System
("ACERS"), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
A purported unitholder of ET, Allegheny County Employees'
Retirement System ("ACERS"), individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, filed a federal securities class action
suit against ET and three of ET's directors: Kelcy L. Warren, John
W. McReynolds, and Thomas E. Long.
The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. ACERS seeks damages allegedly sustained by
it and the class in connection with an alleged decline in ET's unit
value, as well as attorney's fees, litigation costs, and any other
relief the court deems proper.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, the existence of
wrongdoing by ET during permitting and construction of its Mariner
East pipeline project, including that ET made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its business, operations, and
compliance policies related to the project.
Energy Transfer LP provides energy-related services in the United
States and China. The company owns and operates approximately 9,400
miles of natural gas transportation pipelines and three natural gas
storage facilities in Texas; and approximately 12,200 miles of
interstate natural gas pipelines. The company is based in Dallas,
Texas.
ENERGY TRANSFER: Awaits Court Ruling in Regency Merger Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer LP ("ET") disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the Regency Merger
Litigation are awaiting a ruling from the court.
On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint related to the
Regency-ETO merger (the "Regency Merger") in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware (the "Regency Merger Litigation"), on
behalf of Regency's common unitholders against Regency GP LP,
Regency GP LLC, the Company, Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.
("ETO"), Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. ("ETP GP"), and the
members of Regency's board of directors.
The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger
breached the Regency partnership agreement.
On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety.
Plaintiff appealed, and the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the
judgment of the Court of Chancery. Plaintiff then filed an Amended
Verified Class Action Complaint, which defendants moved to
dismiss.
The Court of Chancery granted in part and denied in part the
motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants
other than Regency GP, LP and Regency GP LLC (the "Regency
Defendants"). The Court of Chancery later granted Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for class certification. Trial was held on
December 10-16, 2019, and the parties await a ruling from the
court.
Energy Transfer LP said, "The Regency Defendants cannot predict the
outcome of the Regency Merger Litigation or any lawsuits that might
be filed subsequent to the date of this filing; nor can the Regency
Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be
required to resolve the Regency Merger Litigation. The Regency
Defendants believe the Regency Merger Litigation is without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against it."
Energy Transfer LP provides energy-related services in the United
States and China. The company owns and operates approximately 9,400
miles of natural gas transportation pipelines and three natural gas
storage facilities in Texas; and approximately 12,200 miles of
interstate natural gas pipelines. The company is based in Dallas,
Texas.
EQM MIDSTREAM: Smith Says Merger Info Misleading
------------------------------------------------
EDWARD SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQM MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, LP, THOMAS F. KARAM,
MICHAEL A. BRYSON, KENNETH M. BURKE, DIANA M. CHARLETTA, ROBERT J.
COOPER, KIRK R. OLIVER, LARA E. WASHINGTON, EQUITRANS MIDSTREAM
CORPORATION, EQM LP CORPORATION, LS MERGER SUB, LLC, and EQGP
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00466-UNA (D. Del.,
April 2, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged violation of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Plaintiff is an owner of EQM common stocks.
The complaint arises from the Merger Agreement of EQM Midstream
Partners with Equitrans Midstream Corporation, EQM LP Corporation,
LS Merger Sub, LLC, and the General Partner caused by EQM
Midstream' Board of Directors on February 26, 2020. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, each outstanding unit of EQM that is
not owned by Equitrans and its subsidiaries will be converted into
2.44 shares of Equitrans common stock.
Moreover, Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2020 in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. However, there were
omitted material information in the Registration Statement filed
regarding the Partnership's Equitrans', and the combined company's
financial projections, which renders the Registration Statement
false and misleading.
According to the complaint, the omitted information in the
Registration Statement is important to EQM common stock owners in
deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction. Because of the
false and misleading statements, Plaintiff and the Class are
threatened with irreparable harm.
EQM Midstream Partners, LP is a growth-oriented limited partnership
that was formed to own, operate, acquire, and develop midstream
assets in the Appalachian Basin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302)295-5310
Fax: (302)654-7530
Emails: 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
Tel: (484)324-6800
Fax: (484)631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Bid to Dismiss SDNY Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss filed in the putative securities class action suit pending
before the Southern District of New York (SDNY), is pending.
On May 13, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in federal court in the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of
its executive officers.
On August 16, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and on
October 15, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Company
securities between April 20, 2018, and April 23, 2019.
Plaintiffs allege that the Company made materially misleading
statements about the Company's financial results, business,
operations and prospects starting on April 20, 2018, that these
statements caused the Company's securities to be overvalued and
that the "truth" came out on January 24, 2019, when the Company
disclosed that a credit relationship was downgraded and further on
April 22, 2019, when the Company disclosed a $14,500 provision for
loan loss against that credit relationship.
On December 6, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss which
remains pending before the court.
The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and it
intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted.
Equity Bancshares said, "At this time, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the outcome of this litigation."
Equity Bancshares, Inc., incorporated on August 23, 2002, is a bank
holding company. The Company's principal activity is the ownership
and management of its subsidiary, Equity Bank (the Bank). The Bank
provides a range of financial services primarily to businesses and
business owners, as well as individuals through its network of over
49 branches located in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma. The
company is based in Wichita, Kansas.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces Coulter FCRA Suit Over Credit Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMSEY COULTER, individually, on behalf of other similarly situated
consumers v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-01814-NIQA (E.D. Pa., April 7, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiff contends that on April 2015, he was unable to meet
his financial obligations and declared a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. His
American Express credit card was included within this bankruptcy.
On March 26, 2018, he reviewed his Experian credit report and
noticed a change in the way his American Express account was being
reported to Experian. Prior to this date, the Date of Status was
being reported as 4/2015--the timeframe in which he filed for
bankruptcy, and the last time the status of the account had
changed. However, in March 2018, he noticed that the Date of Status
was changed to 4/2016.
The Plaintiff alleges that the change made it appear as though his
American Express account was discharged more recently, and
negatively affected his credit score by bringing a negative account
more recent.
Experian operates as an information services company. The Company
offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Linker, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
Clifton, NJ 07014
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
E- mail: nl@zemellawllc.com
FGL HOLDINGS: Lin Securities Suit Challenges Merger With Fidelity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lin, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FGL HOLDINGS, CHINH E. CHU, WILLIAM P. FOLEY, II,
CHRISTOPHER O. BLUNT, KEITH W. ABELL, PATRICK S. BAIRD, MENES O.
CHEE, RICHARD N. MASSEY, JAMES A. QUELLA and TIMOTHY M. WALSH, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03144 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2020), is brought on behalf
of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of FGL
Holdings against the Company and the members of the Company's board
of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the proposed merger between FGL and
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.
On February 7, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive $12.50 in cash or 0.2558 shares of
Fidelity common stock for each share of FGL stock they own (the
"Merger Consideration").
On April 1, 2020, in order to convince FGL shareholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, in violation of the Exchange Act. The
Plaintiff contends that while touting the fairness of the Merger
Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the S-4, the
Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information
that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness
of the Proposed Transaction, thereby, violating SEC rules and
regulations and rendering certain statements in the S-4 materially
incomplete and misleading.
In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections
for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by
the Defendants in recommending that FGL shareholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain
valuation analyses conducted by FGL's financial advisor, Houlihan
Lokey Capital, Inc. in support of its opinion that the Merger
Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied.
It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to
allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for violations
of the Exchange Act, based on the Defendants' violation of: (i)
Regulation G; and (ii) Rule 14a-9. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin
the Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed
Transaction unless, and until, the material information discussed
is disclosed to FGL shareholders sufficiently in advance of the
vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from
Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff is a holder of FGL common stock.
FGL offers various types of fixed annuities and life insurance
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-983-9330
Facsimile: 212-983-9331
Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com
FRANCHISE WORLD: Bittner TCPA Suit Moved from Ariz. to Conn.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SHELI BITTNER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRANCHISE WORLD
HEADQUARTERS, LLC; DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES LLC; and SUBWAY FRANCHISEE
ADVERTISING FUND TRUST, LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-00222 (Filed Jan. 30,
2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut (New Haven) on April 17, 2020.
The District of Connecticut Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00522-SRU to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brought this class action complaint for legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendants in sending automated text message advertisements to her
cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other
individuals across the country, in clear violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Franchise World operates and franchises subway restaurants. The
Company offers sandwiches, salads, breads, toppings, and drinks.
Doctor's Associates, doing business as Subway, operates a chain of
quick service restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 800-2201
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
FROST BANK: Defrauds Small Business Owners, Kennard Law Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kennard Law, P.C., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. FROST BANK, Case No. 2020-24431 (Tex. Dist., Harris
Cty., April 20, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
deceiving and defrauding small business owners in connection with
the Paycheck Protection Program administered by the Small Business
Administration.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made misrepresentations
to many small business owners that they would assist them with
their PPP loan applications and submit them for approval.
Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, the Defendant chose to prioritize
select customers and "bigger business" for approval to the
detriment of the Plaintiff. The Defendant knowingly and negligently
chose to accept federal money to process PPP loans while knowing it
would not do so or did not have sufficient infrastructure in place
to handle the applications submitted, to the detriment of the
Plaintiff and Class Members.
The Plaintiff asserts cause of action for fraud, fraud in the
inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract,
negligence, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practice Act, and
seek to recover actual a consequential damages of no less than
$10,000,000, exemplary damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiff is a small business and a professional corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Texas.
The Defendants is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Moshenberg, Esq.
Nicholas R. Lawson, Esq.
MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2700
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 337-5580
Telecopy: (713) 337-8850
Email: Avi.Moshenberg@mhllp.com
Nick.Lawson@mhllp.com
FULTON BANK: Still Defends Kress Class Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
Fulton Bank, N.A. continues to face the putative class action
lawsuit filed by a former Fulton Bank teller supervisor in New
Jersey, according to Fulton Financial Corporation's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
On October 15, 2019, a former Fulton Bank teller supervisor, D.
Kress filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of herself
and other similarly situated non-exempt, hourly employees in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, D. Kress v.
Fulton Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-18985. Fulton Bank accepted
service of process on January 20, 2020.
The lawsuit alleges that Fulton Bank did not record or otherwise
account for the amount of time which non-exempt employees who are
paid based on their time worked, spent conducting branch opening
security procedures. The allegation is that, as a result, Fulton
Bank did not properly compensate those employees for their regular
and overtime wages.
The lawsuit alleges that by doing so, Fulton violated: (i) the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks back overtime wages for
a period of three years, liquidated damages and attorney fees and
costs; (ii) the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and seeks back
overtime wages for a period of six years, treble damages and
attorney fees and costs; and (iii) the New Jersey Wage Payment Law
and seeks back wages for a period of six years, treble damages and
attorney fees and costs. The lawsuit also asserts New Jersey
common law claims seeking compensatory damages and interest.
Fulton Financial Corporation is a U.S. regional financial services
holding company, headquartered in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Still Faces 3 Class Suits over TSYS Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Payments Inc. continues to face three pending putative class
action suits related to its merger with Total System Services, Inc.
("TSYS"), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
On September 18, 2019, the Company consummated its merger with
Total System Services, Inc. ("TSYS") (the "Merger") for total
purchase consideration of US$24.5 billion, primarily funded with
shares of the Company's common stock.
Six putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger were
filed.
Two of these lawsuits, captioned Peters v. Total System Services,
Inc. et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00114) and Wolf v. Total System
Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00115), were filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on
July 18, 2019.
The third lawsuit, captioned Drulias v. Global Payments Inc., et al
(Case No. 60774/2019) was filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of Westchester on July 19, 2019.
The fourth lawsuit, captioned Hickey v. Total System Services,
Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-03337-LMM) was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division, on July 23, 2019.
The fifth lawsuit, captioned, Cason v. Total System Services, Inc.,
et al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-07471) was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 9,
2019.
The sixth lawsuit, captioned, Cheng v. Total System Services, et
al. (Case No: 1:19-cv-01513-UNA) was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on August 13, 2019.
The complaints filed in the lawsuits assert, among other matters,
claims for filing a materially incomplete registration statement
with the SEC. Global Payments and TSYS released supplemental
disclosures relating to the Merger in late August 2019, and the
Peters lawsuit, the Wolf lawsuit and the Cheng lawsuit have been
voluntarily dismissed.
Global Payments Inc. is a provider of payment technology services.
The Company provides payment and digital commerce solutions. The
Company operates through three segments: North America, Europe and
Asia-Pacific. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.
GODADDY INC: Initial Court OK on Settlement of 3 TCPA Suits Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GoDaddy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that a motion for the preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement involving three class action complaints
remains pending.
On June 13, 2019, the Company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle the class action complaint, Jason Bennett v.
GoDaddy.com (Case No. 2:16-cv-03908-DLR)(U.S.D.C.)(D.Ariz.), filed
on June 20, 2016. The complaint alleges violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the TCPA).
On September 23, 2019, the parties fully executed a written
settlement agreement.
On December 16, 2019, the Company amended the settlement agreement
to include two additional putative class action cases, which also
alleged violations of the TCPA: John Herrick v. GoDaddy.com, LLC,
D. Ariz. (Case No. 2:16-cv-00254, appeal pending 18-16048 (9th
Cir.)) and Susan Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC (Case No 19-cv-00563).
The amended settlement agreement is still subject to Court
approval; a Motion for Preliminary Approval was filed on January
10, 2020 and remains pending.
Under the terms of the proposed amended settlement agreement, the
Company would make available a total of up to US$35.0 million to
pay: (i) class members, at their election, either a cash settlement
or a credit to be used for future purchases of products from the
Company, (ii) an incentive payment to the class representative,
(iii) notice and administration costs in connection with the
settlement, and (iv) attorneys' fees to legal counsel representing
the class. If approved, the Company would receive a full release
from the settlement class (other than from those class members who
timely elect to opt out of the settlement) concerning the claims
asserted, or that could have been asserted, with respect to the
claims released in the amended settlement agreement.
During the three months ended June 30, 2019, the Company recorded
an estimated loss provision of US$18.1 million to general and
administrative expense, which represents the Company's best
estimate of the total settlement costs, inclusive of attorneys'
fees to be paid to legal counsel representing the class in
connection with the settlement. The Company made no changes to the
Company's estimated loss accrual during the six months ended
December 31, 2019. The Company's legal fees associated with this
matter have been recorded to general and administrative expense as
incurred and were not material.
The Company said, "We have denied and continue to deny the
allegations in the complaint. Nothing in the amended settlement
agreement shall be deemed to assign or reflect any admission of
fault, wrongdoing or liability, or of the appropriateness of a
class action in such litigation."
* * *
The case, Bennett v. GoDaddy.com LLC, was transferred from the
District Court in Arizona to the District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama pursuant to the order of Senior Judge Roslyn O
Silver on February 13, 2020. The parties agreed to the transfer.
Chief Judge Kristi K. DuBose on February 21 entered an order
consolidating the cases, with Drazen as the lead case.
Judge DuBose also entered an Order for parties to file on or before
March 6, 2020, briefs explaining how the consolidated case is
distinguishable from Salcedo v. Hanna, the basis for standing and
whether the proposed class includes text message only recipients.
GoDaddy Inc. provides a cloud-based web platform for small
businesses, web design professionals and individuals. The
Company's platform provides applications that help them connect to
their customers, manage their businesses and get found online. It
was incorporated in 2014 and is headquartered in Scottsdale,
Arizona.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Consolidated Complaint over Uber IPO Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that plaintiffs in the state court
action relating to Uber Technologies, Inc.'s US$8.1 billion May
2019 initial public offering have filed a consolidated amended
complaint.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in several putative securities class actions filed
beginning in September 2019 in California Superior Court, County of
San Francisco and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, relating to Uber Technologies, Inc.'s (Uber) US$8.1
billion May 2019 initial public offering. In addition to the
underwriters, the defendants include Uber and certain of its
officers and directors.
GS&Co. underwrote 35,864,408 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately US$1.6 billion.
On January 30, 2020, plaintiffs in the state court action filed a
consolidated amended complaint.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Arbitration Bid in Employment Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The motion of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. ("Group Inc.") and
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") to compel arbitration as to
certain class members who are parties to agreements with the
Company and GS&Co. in which they agreed to arbitrate
employment-related disputes remain pending.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that on September 15, 2010, a
putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by three female former employees.
The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that Group Inc. and
GS&Co. have systematically discriminated against female employees
in respect of compensation, promotion and performance evaluations.
The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees
employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and
GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New
York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action
status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.
On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as
to the plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims.
On September 4, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied
defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district
court's class certification decision and subsequently denied
defendants' petition for rehearing.
On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs advised the district court that
they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and
declaratory relief.
On April 12, 2019, Group Inc. and GS&Co. filed a motion to compel
arbitration as to certain class members who are parties to
agreements with Group Inc. and/or GS&Co. in which they agreed to
arbitrate employment-related disputes, and plaintiffs filed a
motion challenging the enforceability of arbitration agreements
executed after the filing of the class action.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss VRDO-Related Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit related to
variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs) is still pending,
according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the defendants named in
a putative class action relating to variable rate demand
obligations (VRDOs), filed beginning in February 2019 under
separate complaints and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 31, 2019,
generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state
common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the
defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs.
The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages.
Defendants moved to dismiss on July 30, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Drop Commodities-Related Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss a third consolidated amended
complaint in the Commodities-Related Litigation is still pending,
according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019.
Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in
putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and
palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently
amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in
connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for
physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.
Defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended
complaint on July 21, 2017.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Suit Over Altice USA IPO Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action suit related to Altice USA, Inc.'s US$2.15
billion June 2017 initial public offering is still pending.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New
York Supreme Court, County of Queens and the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York beginning in June 2018,
relating to Altice USA, Inc.'s (Altice) US$2.15 billion June 2017
initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the
defendants include Altice and certain of its officers and
directors. GS&Co. underwrote 12,280,042 shares of common stock
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$368
million.
On May 10, 2019, plaintiffs in the district court filed an amended
complaint, and on June 27, 2019, plaintiffs in the state court
action filed a consolidated amended complaint.
On July 23, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint
in the state court action.
On October 14, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in
the district court action.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss the litigation related to the sale of U.S. Treasury
securities remains pending.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the primary dealers
named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to
the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July
2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a
similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017.
The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29,
2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws
in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the
when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and
that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude
trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms
in order to impede competition in the bidding process.
The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding
manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as
related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act.
The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble
damages in an unspecified amount and restitution.
Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Lawsuits over Aluminum Trades Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs International
(GSI), J. Aron & Company and Metro continue to defend themselves in
a consolidated class action suit related to the storage of aluminum
and aluminum trading, according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
GS&Co., GSI, J. Aron & Company and Metro, a previously consolidated
subsidiary of the Company that was sold in the fourth quarter of
2014, are among the defendants in a number of putative class and
individual actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
The complaints generally allege violations of federal antitrust
laws and state laws in connection with the storage of aluminum and
aluminum trading. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and
other equitable relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
including treble damages.
In December 2016, the district court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss as to all remaining claims. Certain plaintiffs
subsequently appealed in December 2016.
On August 27, 2019, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's
dismissals and remanded the case to district court for further
proceedings.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Suit over Mortgage Matters Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings in the consolidated suit on mortgage-related matters of
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. ("Group Inc.") remain stayed pending
the appellate court's decision on the district court's August 14,
2018 grant of class certification, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s
public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in
the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm's conflict
of interest management.
The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which
names as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former
officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and seeks unspecified damages. The defendants have moved for
summary judgment.
On December 11, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted
the defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district
court's August 14, 2018 grant of class certification.
On January 23, 2019, the district court stayed proceedings pending
the appellate court's decision.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Securities Case over 1MDB Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. has moved to dismiss a putative
securities class action lawsuit in New York related to the
Company's 1MDB disclosures, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company ("Group Inc.") and certain former
officers of the firm alleging violations of the anti-fraud
provisions of the Exchange Act with respect to Group Inc.'s
disclosures concerning 1MDB and seeking unspecified damages. The
plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on October 28, 2019,
which the defendants moved to dismiss on January 9, 2020.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that its firm affiliates continue to
face a putative class action lawsuit in Canada related to Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc.
(GS Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named
as defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in
the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada. In addition to the
underwriters and initial purchasers, the defendants include Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Valeant), certain directors
and officers of Valeant and Valeant's auditor.
As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013
public offering of US$2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013
Rule 144A offering of US$3.2 billion principal amount of senior
notes, and the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of US$900 million
principal amount of senior notes. The complaint asserts claims
under the Quebec Securities Act and the Civil Code of Quebec.
On August 29, 2017, the court certified a class that includes only
non-U.S. purchasers in the offerings. Defendants' motion for leave
to appeal the certification was denied on November 30, 2017.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GRAND FLORIDIAN: Santos Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Landy De Los Santos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Grand Floridian at Doral, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-21657-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has a longstanding policy
of misclassifying its employees as purported independent
contractors. In doing so, the Defendant required and/or permitted
the Plaintiff to work as realtors on their property in excess of 40
hours per week but refused to compensate them at the applicable
minimum wage and overtime rates. In fact, the Defendant refused to
compensate the Plaintiff at all for the hours she and others like
her worked. These realtors' only compensation was in the form of a
"draw" or advance on sales commissions that realtors were required
to pay back to the Defendant.
The Plaintiff is a former salesperson, who was terminated by the
Defendant.
Grand Floridian at Doral, LLC, is a company engaged in real estate
sales, marketing, finance, and development, with operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 209
North Miami, FL 33181
Phone: (305) 901-2209
Fax: (786) 870-4030
Email: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law
GRUPO AEROMEXICO: Snyder Sues Over Denial to Refund Void Flights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cambrien Snyder, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GRUPO AEROMEXICO S.A.B. DE C.V., and AEROVIAS DE
MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V., d/b/a AEROMEXICO, Case No. 2:20-cv-03649
(C.D. Cal., April 20, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.
The Plaintiff alleges that Aeromexico has breached its contracts
with thousands of paying customers by offering credits for future
travel on the airline instead of providing refunds for flights
canceled by the airline.
Aeromexico typically operates more than 600 daily flights to more
than 80 destinations in Mexico, the United States, Canada, Latin
America, Europe, and Asia. But this year, Aeromexico has responded
to a sudden drop in demand for passenger air travel by canceling
scores of scheduled flights. Under the terms of both Aeromexico's
uniform contracts with their customers, when the airline cancels a
flight, the airline must either re-accommodate passengers on the
next available flight or refund the passengers. When Aeromexico
cancels a flight, the contracts with the passengers require the
airline to either (1) rebook passengers on the next available
flight to their destination; or (2) provide a full refund.
The contract terms governing cancellations by the airline do not
give Aeromexico the option of providing customers with a "credit"
for future travel on the airline instead of a refund. Nevertheless,
after canceling at least 50% of their scheduled flights, Aeromexico
has offered many of their canceled passengers only two options: (1)
rebook your flight to a route that the airline has not canceled, or
(2) obtain travel credit. Instead of following the terms of its
contracts, Aeromexico is unilaterally pushing credits or vouchers
on customers, making it impossible for many customers to request
refunds, and denying refunds when legitimate requests are made,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and her husband purchased round-trip tickets from
Aeromexico for themselves and their three children for travel from
Los Angeles, California, to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, on April 4,
2020, and from Puerto Vallarta to Los Angeles on April 9, 2020. For
each ticket, the Plaintiff paid a cash fare of $859.84, including
taxes and fees, using a credit card.
Aeromexico is a major international passenger airline and flag
carrier of Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
Sara D. Avila, Esq.
Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 396-9600
Fax: (310) 396-9635
Email: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
savila@mjfwlaw.com
mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com
–and–
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 –
V Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 254-6807
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: vprentice@tzlegal.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
Joshua R. Levine, Esq.
Daniel Tropin, 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
levine@kolawyers.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, 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
- and -
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 788-8300
Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
H&R BLOCK: Appeal in Olosoni and Snarr Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the company's appeal
from the order denying a motion to compel arbitration in Olosoni
and Snarr v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. suit, is still pending.
On May 17, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco (Case No. CGC-19576093) styled Olosoni and Snarr v. H&R
Block, Inc., et al. The case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on June 21,
2019 (Case No. 3:19-cv-03610-SK).
The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on August 9, 2019,
dropping H&R Block, Inc. from the case. In their amended complaint,
the plaintiffs seek to represent classes of all persons, between
May 17, 2015 and the present, who (1) paid to file one or more
federal tax returns through H&R Block’s internet-based filing
system, (2) were eligible to file those tax returns for free
through the H&R Block Free File offer of the IRS Free File Program,
and (3) resided in and were citizens of California at the time of
the payments.
The plaintiffs generally allege unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and
deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS
Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq.,
California False Advertising Law, California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq., and California Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections
17200 et seq. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The company filed a motion to stay the proceedings based on the
primary jurisdiction doctrine and a motion to compel arbitration,
both of which were denied. An appeal of the denial of the motion to
compel arbitration is pending.
The court denied the company's motion to transfer venue to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
The company filed a motion to stay the claims pending the outcome
of the appeal, as well as a motion to dismiss the claims, both of
which remain pending.
H&R Block said, "We have not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this
matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted income
tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax solutions,
and other services and products related to income tax return
preparation to the general public primarily in the United States,
Canada, and Australia. H&R Block, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Stay Proceeding in Swanson Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the company's motion
to stay the proceedings in Swanson v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.,
based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine and a motion to compel
arbitration, remains pending.
On September 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., HRB Digital LLC and
Free File, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri (Case No. 4:19-cv-00788-GAF) styled Swanson v.
H&R Block, Inc., et al.
The plaintiff seeks to represent both a nationwide class and a
California subclass of all persons eligible for the IRS Free File
Program who paid to use an H&R Block product to file an online tax
return for the 2002 through 2018 tax filing years.
The plaintiff generally alleges unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and
deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS
Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California Civil Code §§1750, et seq., California
False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code
Sections 17500, et seq., California Unfair Competition Law,
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.,
in addition to breach of contract and fraud. The plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief, disgorgement, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The company filed a motion to stay the proceedings based on the
primary jurisdiction doctrine and a motion to compel arbitration,
both of which remain pending.
H&R Block said, "We have not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this
matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted income
tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax solutions,
and other services and products related to income tax return
preparation to the general public primarily in the United States,
Canada, and Australia. H&R Block, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.
HABIT RESTAURANTS: Class Suits Challenge YUM! Brands Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Habit Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 9, 2020,
that the company has been named as a defendant in several class
action suits related to its merger with YUM! Brands, Inc.
On January 5, 2020, The Habit Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, YUM! Brands, Inc., a North Carolina corporation
("Parent"), and YEB Newco Inc., a Delaware corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), providing
for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company, with the
Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent
(collectively, the "Merger"). The parties publicly announced the
Merger on January 6, 2020.
In connection with the Merger, on February 4, 2020, Habit filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Preliminary Proxy
Statement pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. On February 19, 2020, Habit filed with the SEC a
Definitive Proxy Statement pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Habit commenced mailing the
Definitive Proxy Statement to the Company's stockholders on or
about February 19, 2020.
Following the Proxy Statement, as of the date of this Current
Report on Form 8-K, purported Company stockholders have filed
eleven actions in connection with the Merger and the associated
disclosures made in the Proxy Statement.
On February 5, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned Gottlieb v. The Habit Restaurants, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00966, against the Company and the members
of the Company's Board of Directors.
On February 11, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned Morris v. The Habit Restaurants, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01182, against the Company and the members
of the Company's Board of Directors.
On February 11, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a putative
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, captioned Smith v. The Habit Restaurants,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00203, against the Company
and the members of the Company's Board of Directors.
On February 12, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned Avila v. The Habit Restaurants, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 1:20-cv-01248, against the Company and the members of
the Company's Board of Directors.
On February 12, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned Sterner v. The Habit Restaurants, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01251, against the Company and the members
of the Company's Board of Directors.
On February 13, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a putative
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Shudic v. The Habit
Restaurants, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8:20-cv-00294, against
the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors.
On February 20, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Grijalva v. The Habit Restaurants, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01661, against the Company and the
members of the Company's Board of Directors.
On February 21, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
captioned Restivo v. The Habit Restaurants, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 2:20-cv-01927, against the Company and the members of
the Company's Board of Directors.
On February 24, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a putative
class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
Bounds & Co. v. The Habit Restaurants, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
2020-0124 (Del. Ch.), against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors.
On February 24, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a putative
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Stein v. The Habit
Restaurants, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01763, against
the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors.
On February 26, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned Antalan v. The Habit Restaurants, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01850, against the Company and the
members of the Company's Board of Directors.
The complaints in these eleven actions (collectively, the "Merger
Litigation") allege, among other things, that the Company and the
members of the Company’s Board of Directors violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
under the Exchange Act, and breached their fiduciary duties, by
misstating or omitting certain allegedly material information in
the Proxy Statement filed with the SEC regarding the Merger.
The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the Merger, rescissory damages or
rescission in the event of consummation of the Merger, declaratory
relief related to the disclosures in the Proxy Statement, and
certain fees and expenses.
The parties to the Merger Litigation subsequently engaged in
arm's-length negotiations to attempt to resolve the claims asserted
in the Merger Litigation, and reached an agreement whereby the
Company would file on this Current Report on Form 8-K certain
supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger.
The Company and Company's Board of Directors believe that the
allegations and claims asserted in the Merger Litigation lack
merit, and that the supplemental disclosures set forth are not
required or necessary under applicable laws.
The supplemental disclosures will not affect the consideration to
be paid to Company stockholders in connection with the Merger or
the timing of the special meeting of the Company's stockholders
(the "Special Meeting") scheduled for March 18, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
Pacific Time, at 18700 MacArthur Blvd. Irvine, CA 92612. The
Company's Board of Directors continues to recommend that Habit's
stockholders vote “FOR” the proposal to adopt the Merger
Agreement; "FOR" the proposal to approve, by advisory (non-binding)
vote, certain compensation arrangements that may be paid or become
payable to Habit's named executive officers that is based on or
otherwise related to the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement; and "FOR" the proposal to
approve the adjournment of the special meeting to a later date or
dates, if necessary or appropriate, to solicit additional proxies
if there are insufficient votes to approve the adoption of the
Merger Agreement at the time of the Special Meeting.
Irvine, California-based The Habit Restaurants, Inc., manages and
operates 95 quick casual restaurants as "The Habit Burger Grill" in
California, Arizona and Utah. The Habit restaurants serve
charbroiled hamburgers, specialty sandwiches, fresh salads, and
shakes and malts.
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Still Faces Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. remains a defendant in a securities
class action suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
On March 22, 2019, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The
initial complaint, which was filed by a plaintiff purportedly on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities between April
11, 2017 and March 4, 2019, alleges violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the matters related to the
Company's EPS calculation practices.
On September 17, 2019, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, extend the Class Period to cover the period between April
8, 2014 and March 4, 2019, and to name additional individuals
affiliated with the Company as defendants.
The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of the plaintiff class.
Healthcare Services Group, Inc., incorporated on November 22, 1976,
provides management, administrative and operating services to the
housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance and dietary
service departments of the healthcare industry, including nursing
homes, retirement complexes, rehabilitation centers and hospitals
located throughout the United States. The Company operates through
two segments: housekeeping, laundry, linen and other services
(Housekeeping), and dietary department services (Dietary). The
company is based in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.
HEWLETT PACKARD: Demurrer in Ross and Rogus Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the court
has denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the putative class
and granted the demurrer as to the claims of the individual
plaintiffs in the case, Ross and Rogus v. Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company.
On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging
that HPE pays its California-based female employees "systemically
lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing
substantially similar work.
The complaint alleges various California state law claims,
including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing
Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a
California-only class of female employees employed in certain
"Covered Positions."
The complaint seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties,
attorneys’ fees and costs.
On April 2, 2019, HPE filed a demurrer to all causes of action and
an alternative motion to strike portions of the complaint. On July
2, 2019, the court denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the
putative class and granted HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the
individual plaintiffs.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.
HEWLETT PACKARD: May 14 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Forsyth Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the court
has set a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss the class
action suit entitled, Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett
Packard Enterprise, for May 14, 2020.
This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18,
2016 and an amended complaint was filed on December 19, 2016 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging
defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective action under the
ADEA comprised of all individuals aged 40 and older who had their
employment terminated by an HP entity pursuant to a work force
reduction ("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 for individuals
terminated in deferral states and on or after April 8, 2015 in
non-deferral states. Plaintiffs also seek to certify a Rule 23
class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or
older employed by defendants in the state of California and
terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.
On September 20, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and administratively closed the case pending
resolution of the arbitration proceedings. On November 30, 2017,
three named plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand.
Thirteen additional plaintiffs later joined the arbitration. On
December 22, 2017, defendants filed a motion to (1) stay the case
pending arbitrations and (2) enjoin the demanded arbitration and
require each plaintiff to file a separate arbitration demand. On
February 6, 2018, the court granted the motion to stay and denied
the motion to enjoin.
The claims of these sixteen arbitration named plaintiffs have been
resolved. Additional opt-in plaintiffs were added to the litigation
and these claims also were resolved as part of the arbitration
process.
The stay of the Forsyth class action has been lifted and a Third
Amended Complaint was filed on January 7, 2020. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on February 6, 2020.
The Court has set a hearing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss
for May 14, 2020.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.
HILLS BANCORPORATION: Still Defends Overdraft Fees Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hills Bancorporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit related to overdraft fees on debit card
transactions.
On April 10, 2019, Hills Bank was sued in a class action lawsuit in
the Iowa District Court for Johnson County.
The lawsuit seeks class action status for customers who had paid
overdraft fees on debit card transactions that were authorized into
a positive account, but settled into a negative account.
Plaintiff contends that these overdraft fees breached the terms of
Hills Bank's account documents.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for breach of
contract.
The Bank disputes the merits of Plaintiff's claims and filed a
motion to dismiss the case, which the Court denied.
Hills said, "At this stage of the proceedings, it is not possible
for management of the Bank to determine the probability of an
adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential
loss."
Hills Bancorporation is a holding company principally engaged,
through its subsidiary bank, in the business of banking. The
company is based in Hills, Iowa.
IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 LLC Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit initiated by JDS1, LLC.
On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and
derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed
a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick
Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and
beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly
held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors.
The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight
Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi
Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling
stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties
to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims
between Straight Path and the Company related to potential
indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under
the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC"), as well as the sale of Straight Path's
subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the Company in
connection with that settlement.
That action was consolidated with a similar action that was
initiated by The Arbitrage Fund.
The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaration
that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the
alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused;
(ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the
unfair price stockholders received in the merger between Straight
Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight
Path’s Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas,
Davidi Jonas, and the Company to disgorge any profits for the
benefit of the class Plaintiffs.
On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Following closing of the transaction, the
Delaware Chancery Court denied the motion to dismiss.
On February 22, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the
denial of the motion to dismiss.
The parties are engaged in discovery.
IDT said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. At
this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its potential
liability, if any."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.
ING GROEP: Appeal in SIBOR and SOR Related Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
ING Groep N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the class
action suit related to Singapore Interbank Offer Rate ("SIBOR") and
the Singapore Swap Offer Rate ("SOR"), filed an appeal on the
judgment of the district court granting defendants' motion to
dismiss and denied leave to further amend the complaint.
In July 2016, investors in derivatives tied to the Singapore
Interbank Offer Rate ("SIBOR") filed a U.S. class action complaint
in the New York District Court alleging that several banks,
including ING, conspired to rig the prices of derivatives tied to
SIBOR and the Singapore Swap Offer Rate ("SOR").
The lawsuit refers to investigations by the Monetary Authority of
Singapore("MAS") and other regulators, including the U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"),in relation to rigging prices
of SIBOR- and SOR based derivatives.
In October 2018, the New York District Court issued a decision
dismissing all claims against ING Group and ING Capital Markets
LLC, but leaving ING Bank, together with several other banks, in
the case, and directing plaintiffs to file an amended complaint
consistent with the Court's rulings.
In October 2018, plaintiffs filed such amended complaint, which
asserts claims against a number of defendants but none against ING
Bank (or any other ING entity), effectively dismissing ING Bank
from the case. In December 2018, plaintiffs sought permission from
the Court to file a further amended complaint that names ING Bank
as a defendant.
In July 2019, the New York District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and denied leave to further amend the complaint,
effectively dismissing all remaining claims against ING Bank.
In November 2019, plaintiffs filed an appeal against this judgment.
Claims regarding accounts with predecessors of ING Bank Turkey: ING
Bank Turkey has received numerous claims from (former) customers of
legal predecessors of ING Bank Turkey.
The claims are based on offshore accounts held with these banks,
which banks were seized by the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund
(SDIF) prior to the acquisition of ING Bank Turkey in 2007 from
OYAK. SDIF has also filed various lawsuits against ING Bank Turkey
to claim compensation from ING Bank Turkey, with respect to amounts
paid out to offshore account holders so far. At this moment it is
not possible to assess the outcome of these procedures nor to
provide an estimate of the (potential) financial effect of these
claims.
ING Groep N.V., a financial institution, provides various banking
products and services to individuals, small and medium-sized
enterprises, and mid-corporates. It operates in Retail Netherlands,
Retail Belgium, Retail Germany, Retail Other, and Wholesale Banking
segments. The company operates in the Netherlands, Belgium, North
America, Latin America, Asia, Australia, and rest of Europe. ING
Groep N.V. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.
ING GROEP: ING Spain Still Defends Mortgage Expenses Claims Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ING Groep N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that ING Spain continues to defend a
class action lawsuit related to mortgage expenses claims.
ING Spain has received claims and is involved in procedures with
customers regarding reimbursement of expenses associated with the
formalisation of mortgages. In most court proceedings in first
instance the expense clause of the relevant mortgage contrac thas
been declared null and ING Spain has been ordered to reimburse all
or part of the applicable expenses.
The courts in first instance have applied in their rulings
different criteria regarding the reimbursement of expenses. ING
Spain has filed an appeal against a number of these court
decisions. ING Spain has also been included, together with other
Spanish banks, in two class actions filed by customer associations.
The outcome of the pending litigation and similar cases that maybe
brought in the future is uncertain.
A provision has been taken. However, the aggregate financial
impact of the current and future litigation could change. In
February 2018, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that Stamp Duty
(Impuesto de Actos Juridicos Documentados) expenses are chargeable
to the customer, while in October 2018 it ruled that Stamp Duty is
chargeable to the banks. In November 2018, the Spanish Supreme
Court clarified the issue regarding Stamp Duty by stating that this
tax should be borne by the customer.
As for the remaining types of the expenses,in January 2019, the
Spanish Supreme Court issued several decisions that stated that the
client and the bank each have to bear half of the notary and
management company costs and that registry costs have to be borne
in full by the bank.
Allocation of valuation costs between the bank and the customer
were not addressed by the Spanish Supreme Court decisions and
remain uncertain.
ING Groep N.V., a financial institution, provides various banking
products and services to individuals, small and medium-sized
enterprises, and mid-corporates. It operates in Retail Netherlands,
Retail Belgium, Retail Germany, Retail Other, and Wholesale Banking
segments. The company operates in the Netherlands, Belgium, North
America, Latin America, Asia, Australia, and rest of Europe. ING
Groep N.V. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.
ING GROEP: Tolling Agreement Entered in MEX Bond Price Fixing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ING Groep N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the ING entities have entered
into a tolling agreement in the class action suit related to the
Mexican Bond Price Fixing, which provides that the statute of
limitations will not be tolled for the two-year duration of the
agreement.
A class action complaint was filed adding ING Bank N.V., ING Groep
N.V., ING Bank Mexico S.A. and ING Financial Markets LLC ("ING") as
defendants to a complaint that had previously been filed against
multiple other financial institutions.
The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix the
prices of Mexican Government Bonds. ING is defending itself against
the allegations. Currently, it is not possible to provide an
estimate of the(potential) financial effect of this claim.
On 30 September 2019, the relevant court dismissed the antitrust
complaint, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to identify any
facts that links eachdefendant to the alleged conspiracy.
On 9 December 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
removing all ING entities as defendants on the condition that the
ING entities enter into a tolling agreement for the duration of two
years.
The relevant ING entities subsequently entered into a tolling
agreement, which provides that the statute of limitations will not
be tolled for the two year duration of the agreement.
Should the plaintiffs discover any evidence of potential
involvement by ING in the activities alleged in the complaint, ING
could be brought back into the litigation.
ING Groep N.V., a financial institution, provides various banking
products and services to individuals, small and medium-sized
enterprises, and mid-corporates. It operates in Retail Netherlands,
Retail Belgium, Retail Germany, Retail Other, and Wholesale Banking
segments. The company operates in the Netherlands, Belgium, North
America, Latin America, Asia, Australia, and rest of Europe. ING
Groep N.V. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Still Defends Class Suits Related Dyke Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Chemicals Ltd said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in class
action lawsuits have signed a procedural agreement that regulates
the procedure by which the disputes will be addressed in the
mediation procedure.
In July and August 2017, three applications for certification of
claims as class actions were filed against the Company, as a result
of a partial collapse of the dyke in the evaporation pond of Rotem
Amfert Israel, which caused contamination of the Ashalim Stream and
its surrounding area.
The claimants contend that the Company breached various provisions
of environmental laws, including, the provisions of the Law for
Prevention of Environmental Hazards, the Water Law, provisions of
the Torts Ordinance, a breach of statutory duty and negligence.
In the framework of the first application, the Court was requested
to instruct the Company to rectify the harm caused as a result of
its omissions, in order to prevent recurrence of the damage caused
as well as to grant a monetary remedy for non‑pecuniary damages.
The monetary remedy was not defined, however, according to the
claimants, the amount of the personal claim is NIS 1,000 ($289) for
each resident of the State of Israel, which totals approximately
8.68 million persons.
In the framework of the second application, the Court was requested
to grant a monetary remedy in an amount of no less than NIS 250
million ($72 million), and concurrently to award personal
compensation in the amount of NIS 2,000 ($578) for each resident of
the State of Israel, this being in respect of non‑pecuniary
damages.
Furthermore, the Court was requested to instruct the Company to
comply with the relevant laws and the rules provided thereunder. As
part of the third application, the Court was requested to instruct
the Company, among other things, to prepare plans for removal of
the contamination, restoration of the Ashalim Stream and its
surrounding area, for control and prevention of recurrence of the
damage caused, to pay monetary relief to the class of injured
parties, in the amount of NIS 202.5 million ($59 million), and to
provide compensation by means of restoring the natural values
impaired and return the area to its former condition.
In May 2018, the Nature and Parks Authority (NPA), filed an
application for certification of a class action against the
Company, Rotem Amfert Israel and past and present officers of the
Company and Rotem Amfert Israel (the Respondents), with respect to
the Ashalim incident.
According to the NPA, the Respondents, jointly and/or severally,
are liable for compensation due to the Ashalim incident, among
other things by virtue of the Torts Ordinance and/or unjust profits
and by virtue of any other law.
In the Application, the Court was requested, among other things, to
issue orders, the purpose of which is to take all necessary
measures to prevent the recurrence of the environmental hazard, and
also to cooperate with the NPA and the State's authorities in order
to minimize the ecological and environmental damage in order to
allow for the restoration of the nature reserve.
Furthermore, the Court was requested to grant monetary relief to
the public injured by the ecological and environmental damage, and
to grant a monetary relief for the purpose of the restoration of
the nature reserve, in the aggregate amount of NIS 397 million
(about $115 million).
In conjunction with the aforesaid application, the NPA filed a
motion to strike the three applications mentioned above and to
prefer the approval application on its behalf, as it argues that it
is the most suitable to serve as the representative plaintiff in a
class action in this regard, as its application is detailed and
well-established as well as the special status conferred upon it
under the Class Actions Law, which allows for specific benefits.
In November 2018, the Company was notified that all four applicants
had agreed to join efforts and manage the class actions in a joint
and coordinated manner, as well as of their consent to take part in
a mediation process in an attempt to resolve the disputes outside
of court.
In January 2020, the parties signed a procedural agreement that
regulates the procedure by which the disputes will be addressed in
the mediation procedure.
Israel Chemicals said, "Considering the early stage of the
proceedings, there is a difficulty in estimating their outcome. The
Company is in contact with its insurance carriers to activate the
relevant insurance policies."
Israel Chemicals Ltd (ICL) is an Israel-based company, engaged in
the fertilizer and specialty chemical sectors.
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Suit v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Chemicals Ltd said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's subsidiary
Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., continues to defend a putative
class action suit in the Jerusalem District Court.
In July 2019, an application for approval of a claim as a class
action was submitted to the Jerusalem District Court by an Israeli
environmental association (hereafter - the Applicant) against 30
defendants, including Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., a subsidiary
of the Company.
The application includes claims relating to air pollution in Haifa
Bay (located in northern Israel) and to alleged illness therefrom
to the population of the said area.
In the framework of the petition, the Applicant requests for
declarative relief and the establishment of a mechanism for
compensation awards, without specifying their amount, or
alternatively, for splitting remedies to allow each group member to
sue for damages in a separate proceeding.
The Company will submit its response within the framework of the
legal proceeding.
Israel Chemicals said, "Considering the early stage of the
proceeding, there is a difficulty in estimating its outcome."
Israel Chemicals Ltd (ICL) is an Israel-based company, engaged in
the fertilizer and specialty chemical sectors.
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Unit Still Defends Suit in Tel-Aviv-Jaffa
-----------------------------------------------------------
Israel Chemicals Ltd said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company subsidiary
Fertilizers and Chemical Ltd., continues to defend a putative class
action suit filed in the District Court in Tel‑Aviv-Jaffa,
related to the air pollution in Haifa Bay and for the harm
allegedly caused from it to the residents of the Haifa Bay area.
In 2015, a request was filed for certification of a claim as a
class action, in the District Court in Tel‑Aviv–Jaffa, against
eleven defendants, including a subsidiary, Fertilizers and Chemical
Ltd., in respect of claims relating to air pollution in Haifa Bay
and for the harm allegedly caused from it to the residents of the
Haifa Bay area.
The amount of the claim is about NIS 13.4 billion (about $3.8
billion).
In the Company's estimation, based on the factual material provided
to it and the relevant court decision, it is more likely than not
that the plaintiffs' contentions will be rejected.
Israel Chemicals Ltd (ICL) is an Israel-based company, engaged in
the fertilizer and specialty chemical sectors.
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Units Continue to Defend Suits in Be'er Sheva
---------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Chemicals Ltd said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's
subsidiaries, Rotem Amfert Israel and Periclase Dead Sea Ltd.,
continue to defend a purported class action suit filed in the
District Court in Be'er Sheva.
In March 2018, an application for certification of a claim as a
class action was filed with the District Court in Be'er Sheva by
two groups: the first class constituting the entire public in the
State of Israel and the second-class constituting visitors of Bokek
stream and the Dead Sea, against the subsidiaries, Rotem Amfert
Israel and Periclase Dead Sea Ltd.
According to the claim, the Respondents have allegedly caused
continuous, severe and extreme environmental hazards through
pollution of the "Judea group -- Zafit formation" groundwater
aquifer and the Ein Bokek spring with industrial wastewater, and in
doing so the Respondents have violated various provisions of
property law and environmental protection law, including the
provisions of the Law for Prevention of Environmental Hazards and
the Water Law, as well as violations relating to the Torts
Ordinance -- breach of statutory duty, negligence and unjust
profits.
Israel Chemicals Ltd (ICL) is an Israel-based company, engaged in
the fertilizer and specialty chemical sectors.
J M SMUCKER: Toxin Free Suit Over CPPA Violation Moved to D.D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TOXIN FREE USA v. THE J. M.
SMUCKER COMPANY and AINSWORTH PET NUTRITION, LLC, Case No.
2019-CA-003192-B (Filed March 18, 2020), was removed from Superior
Court of the District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia on April 17, 2020.
The District of Columbia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01013 to the proceeding.
In this lawsuit, Toxin Free alleges that the Defendants violated
the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act by
engaging in false, deceptive, and misleading merchandising
practices because two varieties of the Defendants' pet food
products state that the products are "natural" and contain "no
artificial preservatives," yet Toxin Free believes the products
contain glyphosate and ethoxyquin, which Toxin Free says is not
natural.
The J. M. Smucker Company, also known as Smucker and Smucker's, is
an American manufacturer of jam, peanut butter, jelly, fruit
syrups, beverages, shortening, ice cream toppings, oils, and other
products in North America. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition is a fifth
generation, primarily family-owned and operated company.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin B. Goldstein, Esq.
Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq.
Sean H. Suber, Esq.
Nathan R. Gilbert, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 558-5600
Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
E-mail: KBGoldstein@winston.com
RRothste@winston.com
SSuber@winston.com
NGilbert@winston.com
J.J. MARSHALL: Gartrell Seeks to Certify FDCPA & FCCPA Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JACARA MONIQUE GARTRELL, on
behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated v. J.J.
MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00442-TJC-JBT (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying the following Classes:
Fair Debt Collection Practices Class:
"all persons in the state of Florida who received at least
one debt collection letter from J.J. Marshall after April
17, 2018"; and
Florida Consumer Collection Protection Act Class:
"all persons in the state of Florida who received at least
one debt collection letter from J.J. Marshall after April
17, 2017"; and
2. appointing herself as representative and her attorneys as
counsel for the Class.
The Plaintiff contends that J.J. Marshall has never been registered
as a debt collector in Florida. On February 2, 2019, J.J. Marshall,
sent a standard form debt collection letter to her, without
disclosing that it was unregistered and therefore not legally
permitted to take such actions. She adds that JJ Marshall has sent
similar collection letters to 1,098 Florida consumers within the
two-year limitations period.
J.J. Marshall provide specialized consumer and commercial debt
collection services.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, #105
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com
- and -
Glenn Banner, Esq.
The Law Office of Glenn S. Banner, P.A.
5245 Commissioners Drive
Jacksonville, FL 32224
Telephone: (904) 240-4401
E-mail: gbanner@gbannerlaw.com
JACK LAURIE: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Powell Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DARREN LEE POWELL v. JACK
LAURIE, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-03074-SAC (D. Kan.), the Hon.
Judge Sam A. Crow denied Plaintiff's motion to certify class.
Judge Crow granted the Plaintiff until April 24, 2020, in which to
show good cause, in writing, to him, why this action should not be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for
failure to comply with court orders.
On March 18, 2020, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff's
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and assessing an
initial partial filing fee of $59.00, calculated under 28 U.S.C.
section 1915(b)(1). The Order granted Plaintiff 14 days from
receipt of the Order to submit the fee or to file an objection to
the Order. The Plaintiff has failed to pay the initial partial
filing fee.
The Plaintiff filed the pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983. The Plaintiff alleges that several of his claims
affect the inmates at the Atchison County Jail as a whole. Although
he does not specify who should be the class representative, Powell
is the only plaintiff that signed the complaint.[CC]
JENN ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Welch Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Welch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JENN ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00059 (S.D.
Tex., April 20, 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 overtime compensation for
all hours that the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been improperly
classified by the Defendants as exempt from the overtime
requirements of the FLSA. The Plaintiff and regularly worked more
than twelve hours per day and well over forty hours per week,
without receiving overtime premium.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from 2014 to October 2018.
Jenn Energy Services, LLC is a domestic limited liability
company.[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
JP MORGAN: Defrauds Small Business Owners, Starwalk Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starwalk of Dallas, LLC and KON-WOOD Houston, LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. JP MORGAN CHASE &
CO D/B/A CHASE BANK, Case No. DC-20-05797 (Tex. Dist., Dallas Cty.,
April 20, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for deceiving and
defrauding small business owners in connection with the Paycheck
Protection Program administered by the Small Business
Administration.
The Defendants made misrepresentations to many small business
owners that they would assist them with their PPP loan applications
and submit them for approval, according to the complaint.
Unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant chose to prioritize
select customers and "bigger business" for approval to the
detriment of the Plaintiff. The Defendant knowingly and negligently
chose to accept federal money to process PPP loans while knowing it
would not do so or did not have sufficient infrastructure in place
to handle the applications submitted, to the detriment of the
Plaintiff and Class Members.
The Plaintiffs assert cause of action for fraud, fraud in the
inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract,
negligence, ad violations of the Deceptive Trade Practice Act, and
seek to recover actual a consequential damages of no less than
$10,000,000, exemplary damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiffs are small businesses conducting business in Dallas
County, Texas.
The Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
Kevin T. Kennedy, Esq.
KENNARD LAW P.C.
2603 Augusta Drive, Suite 1450
Houston, TX 77057
Phone: 713/742.0900
Facsimile: 713/742.0951
Email: Alfonso.Kennard@KennardLaw.com
Kevin.Kennedy@KennardLaw.com
KFORCE INC: Defends Wahrer Suit over Calif. Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kforce Inc. is defending itself in a representative action
initiated by Kathleen Wahrer over alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019
On December 17, 2019, Kforce Inc., et al. was served with a
complaint brought in Superior Court of the State of California,
Alameda County. The case is styled, Kathleen Wahrer, et al. v.
Kforce Inc., et al., Case No.: RG19047269.
The former employee purports to bring a representative action on
her own behalf and on behalf of other current and former aggrieved
employees pursuant to Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")
alleging violations of the California Labor Code ("Labor Code").
The purported Labor Code violations include failure to provide and
pay proper wages for meal and rest periods, failure to properly
calculate and pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide
compliant wage statements, failure to timely pay wages during
employment and upon termination, and failure to reimburse business
expenses.
The plaintiff seeks civil penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs under the Labor Code.
The Company said, "At this stage in the litigation it is not
feasible to predict the outcome of this matter or reasonably
estimate a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this
proceeding."
Kforce Inc. provides professional staffing services and solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates through
Technology (Tech) and Finance and Accounting (FA) segments. Kforce
Inc. was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida.
KFORCE INC: Reaches Preliminary Settlement for Smith Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kforce Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that it has reached a preliminary settlement for
the putative class action styled, Maurcus Smith, Alvin Hodge and
David Kortright, et al. v. Kforce Inc., Case No.:
8:19-cv-02068-CEH-CPT.
On August 23, 2019, Kforce Inc. was served with a complaint, as
amended, brought in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division.
The plaintiffs purport to bring claims on their own behalf and on
behalf of a putative class of consumers/applicants who were the
subject of consumer reports used for employment purposes for
alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, as
amended, ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq. based upon the
defendant's purported failure to provide stand-alone FCRA
disclosures and obtain valid authorizations. The plaintiffs seek
statutory damages, punitive damages, costs, attorney's fees and
other relief under the FCRA.
On February 10, 2020, the parties reached a preliminary settlement
of the case, which is subject to approval by the Court. The
Company said, however, that there can be no assurance that the
Court will approve the preliminary settlement.
The Company said, "We believe that this matter is unlikely to have
a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows."
Kforce Inc. provides professional staffing services and solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates through
Technology (Tech) and Finance and Accounting (FA) segments. Kforce
Inc. was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida.
LACY KATZEN: Susino Sues in W.D. New York Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lacy Katzen LLP. The
case is styled as Michele Susino, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lacy Katzen LLP, Case No.
6:20-cv-06249 (W.D.N.Y., April 17, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Lacy Katzen Attorneys at Law is a full-service law firm, with a
staff of more than 25 lawyers and multiple offices located
throughout the Rochester New York area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 281-7601
Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
csanders@barshaysanders.com
LAND O'LAKES: Cook Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN COOK, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAND O'LAKES, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. (Filed March 18, 2020),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of Tulare to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on April 17, 2020.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-at-00280 to the proceeding.
The suit demands $5 million in damages. The complaint asserts
claims for the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages; failure to
pay overtime wages; failure to pay reporting time pay; and failure
to provide meal periods and permit rest breaks in violation of the
California Labor Code.
Land O'Lakes is a member-owned agricultural cooperative based in
the Minneapolis-St. Paul suburb of Arden Hills, Minnesota.[BN]
Land O'Lakes is represented by:
Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq.
Caitlin W. Tran, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-1000
Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
E-mail: jfife@winston.com
cwtran@winston.com
LATINOS MOTORS: Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose R. Rodriguez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
LATINOS MOTORS OF ORLANDO INC., MATRIX AUTO SALES, INC., d/b/a
LATINO'S MOTOR OF ORLANDO and CARLOS M. ALDERETE, individually,
Case No. 6:20-cv-00678 (M.D. Fla., April 20, 2020), is brought to
recover money damages for unpaid minimum wages and retaliation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that he was misclassified as an Independent
Contractor, and was paid on "commissions only" payment plan, with
an established commission settlement period of one week. The
Defendants set a fixed flat commission per car sold. This flat
commission fluctuated between $300.00 and $150.00 per unit sold. As
per the Plaintiff's understanding, the Defendants changed that
fixed flat commission all the time, at their discretion, causing
the Plaintiff a lot of confusion and great uncertainty in reference
to his expected earnings for the week.
However, the Plaintiff contends, in many weeks his commissions fell
short of the minimum wage for the 66 hours worked in a week period,
and the Defendants did not pay or subsidy the difference. As a
result, the Plaintiff did not receive minimum wages for every hour
worked, as required by the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an inside, full-time
used car salesman.
Defendants LATINOS MOTORS OF ORLANDO INC, and MATRIX AUTO SALES,
INC., d/b/a LATINO'S MOTOR OF ORLANDO are retail businesses
performing as used car dealerships.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
LEXINGTON LAW: Faces Williams Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leroy Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LEXINGTON LAW FIRM; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 2:20-cv-03617 (C.D. Cal., April 20, 2020), arises from the
illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.
The Defendant contacted the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in
an effort to sell or solicit its services. The Plaintiff asked the
Defendant on at least two separate occasions to cease calling him.
However, the Plaintiff's repeated efforts to get the Defendant to
cease its automated barrage of solicitations were to no avail, and
the Defendant continued to harass and annoy him with calls, says
the complaint. The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing
system" to place its calls to the Plaintiff seeking to sell or
solicit its business services.
The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Vallejo, California.
Lexington Law Firm is in credit repair business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
LG ELECTRONICS: Appeals D. Minn. Order in Hudock Suit to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant LG Electonics U.S.A., Inc., filed a petition to appeal
from the District Court's decision issued on May 9, 2016, in the
lawsuit entitled Breann Hudock, et al. v. LG Electronics U.S.A.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-01220-JRT, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of all consumers, who purchased LG televisions
labeled as having refresh rates of "120Hz" or "240Hz" when, in
actuality, its televisions' refresh rates are 60Hz and 120Hz,
respectively.
The appellate case is captioned as Breann Hudock, et al. v. LG
Electronics U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 20-8004, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents Breann Hudock, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Brittany N. Resch, Esq.
GUSTAFSON & GLUEK
Suite 2600, 120 S. Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Email: rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
bresch@gustafsongluek.com
– and –
David Michael Cialkowski, Esq.
Alyssa Leary, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN & REED
1100 IDS Center
80 S. Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Email: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
Alyssa.leary@zimmreed.com
– and –
Luke Hudock, Esq.
HUDOCK LAW GROUP
P.O. Box 83
Muskego, WI 53150
Telephone: (414) 526-4906
– and –
Alex Phillips, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS
Suite 201, 613 Williamson Street
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
– and –
Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN & REED
14646 N. Kierland Boulevard, Suite 145
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (480) 348-6400
Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com
Defendants-Petitioners LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., et al., are
represented by:
Erin L. Hoffman, Esq.
Jeffrey Justman, Esq.
Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq.
FAEGRE & DRINKER
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 S. Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
Telephone: (612) 766-7000
Email: erin.hoffman@faegredrinker.com
jeff.justman@faegredrinker.com
aaron.vanoort@faegredrinker.com
– and –
Thomas Payne Schmidt, Esq.
Phoebe A. Wilkinson, Esq.
HOGAN & LOVELLS
390 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: 212-918-5547
Email: thomas.schmidt@hoganlovells.com
Phoebe.wilkinson@hoganlovells.com
– and –
Catherine Emily Stetson, Esq.
HOGAN & LOVELLS
Columbia Square
555 13th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-0000
Telephone: 202-637-5600
Email: cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com
– and –
Peter H. Walsh, Esq.
HOGAN & LOVELLS
Suite 1225, 80 S. Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2113
Email: peter.walsh@hoganlovells.com
LOANCARE LLC: Owoc Suit Moved From Circuit Court to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNATHAN WAYNE OWOC, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. LOANCARE LLC,
a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No. CACE-19-009325 (Filed
April 30, 2019), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court in and
for Broward County to the U.S. District Court of the Southern
District of Florida (Fort Lauderdale) on April 17, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:20-cv-60805-RS to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that he represents a class of individuals
with "a Florida address" for whom LoanCare acted as a servicer for
their mortgage and who then charged, collected or attempted to
collect certain fees. The Plaintiff alleges a breach-of-contract
claim.
LoanCare provides loan servicing solutions that assist the lending
industry achieve optimal asset performance.[BN]
LoanCare is represented by:
Mary Ellen R. Himes, Esq.
FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP
100 West Cypress Creek Road, Suite 889
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Telephone: (954) 414-2111
Facsimile: (954) 414-2101
E-mail: Maryellen.himes@fnf.com
pleadingsfl@fnf.com
M&L INSULATION: Torres Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSE TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELFINO ALBERTO SANCHEZ-VELASQUEZ
d/b/a M&L INSULATION SERVICE, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01183
(S.D. Tex., April 2, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to maintain
accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and other similarly
situated nonexempt employees.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an insulator from
approximately February 2019 to August 2019 and was paid on an
hourly basis.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of
forty hour per week during his employment with Defendant. However,
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at a rate not less than
one and one-half times the regular rate. Instead, Plaintiff was
paid at his straight time rate by Defendant regardless of the
number of hours he worked.
M&L Insulation Service provides insulation services throughout
Houston. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
Renu Tandale, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Center
440 Louisiana St., Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (713)222-6775
Fax: (713)222-6739
MCCARTHY & BURGESS: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in Zurakov
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RYAN ZURAKOV, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MCCARTHY,
BURGESS& WOLFF, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00571-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
MCDONALD'S CAR WASH: Jones Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Jones, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. MCDONALD'S CAR WASH, INC., THE MARVIN MCDONALD FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 1:20-cv-00163 (E.D. Tex., April 20,
2020), is brought against Defendants to recover unpaid wages owed
to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants employed the Plaintiff to work over 40 hours a week
but refused to compensate him at one and one-half times his regular
rate of pay as required by federal law, says the complaint. The
Plaintiff avers that the Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA,
which requires nonexempt employees to be compensated for their
overtime work at a rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a site attendant.
McDonald's Car Wash, Inc., operates a business enterprise offering
a self-storage facility and car wash in Jasper, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Moshenberg, Esq.
Nicholas R. Lawson, Esq.
MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2700
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 337-5580
Telecopy: (713) 337-8850
Email: Avi.Moshenberg@mhllp.com
Nick.Lawson@mhllp.com
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Mejia Sues Over TCPA and FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Mejia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00564-AWI-SAB
(E.D. Cal., April 20, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely violates the
TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to
place calls to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone
service, without prior express consent, in that it calls wrong or
reassigned telephone numbers. Moreover, the Defendant routinely
violates the FDCPA at by engaging in conduct the natural
consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse consumers in
connection with the collection of debts, in that it continues to
call consumers for the purpose of debt collection after being
informed that it is calling the wrong person.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resided in Selma,
California.
The Defendant is a debt collection company based in Williamsville,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
Elliot Rosenberger, Esq.
THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
7080 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Phone: (602) 388-8898
Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
Email: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com
erosenberger@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com
- and -
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Fax: (561) 961-5684
Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
METROPOLITAN LIFE: 9th Circuit Dismissed the Appeal in Martin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has dismissed the appeal in
Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17,
2015).
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in life
insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four
years.
Plaintiffs allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has
engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound interest on
life insurance policy and premium loans without the borrower
authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes an unlawful
business practice under California law.
Plaintiffs assert causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law,
and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution of
interest, and damages in an unspecified amount.
On April 12, 2016, the court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal on December 2, 2019.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in Miller Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal
in the class action suit entitled, Miller, et al. v. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed January 4, 2019), is
pending.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in this putative class
action, purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons who
replaced their MetLife Optional Term Life or Group Universal Life
policy with a Group Variable Universal Life policy wherein
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company allegedly charged smoker rates
for certain non-smokers.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief.
On September 17, 2019, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint and dismissed the case
in its entirety.
Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Atkins Suit Underway in Nevada
-------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that MetLife,
Inc. is defending against a class action suit entitled, Atkins et.
al. v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (D.Nev., filed November 18, 2019).
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of all
persons due benefits under group annuity contracts but who did not
receive the entire amount to which they were entitled. Plaintiffs
assert claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and conversion based on allegations that the defendants
failed to timely pay annuity benefits to certain group annuitants.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief.
Defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Nationwide Class Settlement in Newman Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
district court has approved a nationwide class settlement of the
class action suit entitled, Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016).
Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, on
behalf of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a
Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature on their long-term care
insurance policies and whose premium rates were increased after age
65.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages, as well as recessionary and injunctive relief.
On April 12, 2017, the court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's motion to dismiss the action.
Plaintiff appealed this ruling and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.
On February 20, 2020, the district court approved a nationwide
class settlement of the case.
The Company accrued the full amount of the expected settlement
payment in prior periods.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Defends Julian & McKinney Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Julian & McKinney
v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9,
2017).
Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.
The suit alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
improperly reclassified the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD
claims specialists from non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in
November 2013.
As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer
eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to
work more than 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as other relief.
On March 22, 2018, the Court conditionally certified the case as a
collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims
specialists who worked for the Company from February 8, 2014 to the
present.
The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.
MGP INGREDIENTS: Retirement Trust Sues Over Stock Price Decline
---------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. MGP INGREDIENTS, INC.; AUGUSTUS C. GRIFFIN; THOMAS K. PIGOTT;
and BRANDON M. GALL, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02180 (D. Kan.,
April 6, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
MGP common stock between August 2, 2018 and February 25, 2020,
alleges that the Defendants failed to keep the company's forecast
about the strong demand and inventory of aged whiskey products that
the company announced in 2015 as part of its five-year growth
strategy. As a result, the company drastically reduced its 2019
sales and earnings guidance by approximately $24 million and $9
million, respectively, and reduced its 2019 earnings per share
guidance from $2.60 to $2.25 at the midpoint. Moreover, the
company's financial result disclosures caused significant declines
in the price of MGP shares, causing MGP investors to suffer
millions of dollars in losses and economic damages under the
federal securities laws.
City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust
is a pension founded in 1939, and provides retirement and
disability benefits to over 2,000 Miami, Florida-based firefighters
and police officers.
MGP Ingredients, Inc. is a producer and supplier of distilled
spirits and food ingredient products based in Atchison, Kansas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan K. Meyer, Esq.
David G. Seely, Esq.
FLEESON, GOOING, COULSON & KITCH LLC
1900 Epic Center, 301 N. Main
Wichita, KS 67202
Telephone: (316) 267-7361
Facsimile: (316) 267-1754
E-mail: rmeyer@fleeson.com
dseely@fleeson.com
- and -
Hannah Ross, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Scott Foglietta, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com
- and -
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq.
KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
780 NW 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
stu@robertdklausner.com
MIAMI-DADE, FL: Swain Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANTHONY SWAIN; ALEN BLANCO;
BAYARDO CRUZ; RONNIEL FLORES; WINFRED HILL; DEONDRE WILLIS; PETER
BERNAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. DANIEL JUNIOR, in his official capacity as Director of the
Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department; and
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Case no. 1:20-cv-21457-KMW (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying one class and
one subclass:
Metro West Class defined as:
"all current and future persons detained at Metro West during
the course of the COVID-19 pandemic"; and
Medically-Vulnerable Subclass defined as:
"all current and future persons held at Metro West over the
age of fifty, as well as all current and future persons held
at Metro West of any age who experience an underlying medical
condition that places them at particular risk of serious
illness or death from COVID-19, including but not limited to
(a) lung disease, including asthma, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (e.g. bronchitis or emphysema), or other
chronic conditions associated with impaired lung function;
(b) heart disease, such as congenital heart disease,
congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease; (c)
chronic liver or kidney disease (including hepatitis and
dialysis patients); (d) diabetes or other endocrine
disorders; (e) epilepsy; (f) hypertension; (g) compromised
immune systems (such as from cancer, HIV, receipt
of an organ or bone marrow transplant, as a side effect of
medication, or other autoimmune disease); (h) blood disorders
(including sickle cell disease); (i) inherited metabolic
disorders; (j) history of stroke; (k) a developmental
disability; (l) a current or recent (within the last two
weeks) pregnancy; and/or (m) any other condition identified
either now or in the future as being a particular risk for
severe illness and/or death caused by COVID-19."
This case is about Defendants' failure to act to protect the lives
of people jailed in Miami's Metro West Detention Center from novel
coronavirus and its resulting disease, COVID-19. The Defendants
have failed to respond to the urgent threat posed to people
confined in the jail by this growing pandemic, making it impossible
for these individuals to observe the precautionary steps necessary
to keep themselves safe, such as social distancing, increased
personal hygiene, sanitizing one's environment, access to testing,
and wearing protective clothing.
The Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department operates
the eighth-largest jail system in the country. Miami-Dade County is
a county in the southeastern part of the U.S. state of
Florida.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:
R. Quinn Smith, Esq.
Katherine Alena Sanoja, Esq.
GST LLP
1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2715
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 856-7723
E-mail: quinn.smith@gstllp.com
katherine.sanoja@gstllp.com
- and -
Meena Jagannath, Esq.
COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT
3000 Biscayne Blvd. Ste 106
Miami, FL 33137
Telephone: (305) 907-7697
E-mail: meena@communityjusticeproject.com
- and -
Maya Ragsdale, Esq.
DREAM DEFENDERS
6161 NW 9 th Ave.
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: 786-309-2217
E-mail: maya@dreamdefenders.org
- and -
Alexandria Twinem, Esq.
Katherine Hubbard, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 800
Washington, DC 2009
Telephone: (202) 894-6126
E-mail: alexandria@civilrightscorps.org
katherine@civilrightscorps.org
- and -
Tiffany Yang, Esq.
Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT
1220 L Street NW, Ste 850
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 728-9557
E-mail: tyang@advancementproject.org
tharvey@advacementproject.org
MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020: Faces Fernandez Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mike Bloomberg 2020,
Inc. The case is styled as Grette Fernandez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mike Bloomberg 2020,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03132-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other contract.
Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. is a presidential campaign officially
launched on November 24, 2019.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan David Lindenfeld, Esq.
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
140 Broadway, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 208-1489
Email: jonathan@feganscott.com
MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Discovery Ongoing in Freedman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Millendo Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the
shareholder class action led Freedman Family Investments LLC as
lead plaintiff are still engaged in discovery.
On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-10511-IT (D. Mass.))
against OvaScience and certain former officers and directors of
OvaScience alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act (the "Dahhan Action").
On July 5, 2017, the court entered an order approving the
appointment of Freedman Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff,
the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel and the
Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as local counsel. Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on August 25, 2017.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which
the court denied on July 31, 2018. On August 14, 2018, the company
answered the amended complaint.
On December 9, 2019, the Court granted leave for plaintiff to file
a second amended complaint under seal and permitted defendants to
file a motion to strike the second amended complaint.
On December 30, 2019, the Court granted the parties' joint motion
to stay all proceedings in the case pending mediation.
On March 3, 2020, the parties conducted a mediation session. As the
mediation was unsuccessful, the parties are resuming discovery.
Millendo said, "We believe that the amended complaint and the
second amended complaint are without merit and intend to defend
against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that we
will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the
Company or the other defendants could have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position and results of
operations. At present, we are unable to estimate potential losses,
if any, related to the lawsuit."
Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, engages in the development of various treatments for
orphan endocrine diseases in the United States. The company is
based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
MILWAUKEE, WI: Kreuziger Seeks to Certify Riparian Owners Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRIAN KREUZIGER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY
And MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT, Case No. Case No.
19-CV-01747 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
Order:
1. certifying a Plaintiff Class consisting of:
"riparian owners with property located adjacent to the
Milwaukee River within a direct proximity of the Estabrook
Dam";
2. appointing himself as Class Representative; and
3. appointing his counsel Galanis, Pollack, Jacobs & Johnson,
S.C. as Class.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' actions have resulted in
the Plaintiff Class suffering a devaluation of property value, loss
of waterfront, increased risk of flooding, environmental impact and
loss of other unquantifiable uses.
Milwaukee County is a county in the U.S. state of Wisconsin. The
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is a regional government
agency that provides water reclamation and flood management
services for about 1.1 million people in 28 communities in the
Greater Milwaukee Area.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua J. Brady, Esq.
Zachary L. Enstrom, Esq.
839 N. Jefferson Street, Suite 200
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 271-5400
E-mail: Jbrady@gpjlaw.com
zenstrom@gpjlaw.com
MINNESOTA: Tyler Suit Over Rights Violation Removed to D. Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GERALDINE TYLER, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. STATE OF MINNESOTA,
and CYNTHIA BAUERLY, in her capacity as Commissioner, Minnesota
Department of Revenue, HENNEPIN COUNTY, and MARK V. CHAPIN,
Auditor-Treasurer, in his official capacity, Case No.
0:20-cv-00889-PJS-BRT, was removed from the Second Judicial
District Court of the State of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota on April 7, 2020.
The District of Minnesota Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:20-cv-00889-PJS-BRT to the proceeding.
On March 10, 2020, the removing Defendants were served with the
summons and amended complaint by personal service. The amended
complaint alleges that the removing Defendants violated the
Plaintiff's rights, and the rights of the putative class, under the
U.S. and Minnesota state Constitutions and were unjustly enriched
in violation of state common law.
Minnesota is a midwestern U.S. state bordering Canada and Lake
Superior, the largest of the Great Lakes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
APPLEBAUM LAW FIRM
332 Minnesota Street, Suite W0150
St. Paul, MN 55101
The Defendants are represented by:
Rebecca L.S. Holschuh, Esq.
Kelly K. Pierce, Esq.
Jeffrey Wojciechowski, Esq.
A-2000 Government Center
300 South 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55487
Telephone: (612) 348-4797
E-mail: rebecca.holschuh@hennepin.us
kelly.pierce@hennepin.us
jeffrey.wojciechowski@hennepin.us
NATURAL HEALTH: Plaintiff's Opening Brief Due June 1
----------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiff's
opening brief in the appeal related to the case, Kauffman v.
Natural Health Trends Corp., Case No. 2:19-cv-00163 suit, is due on
June 1, 2020.
On January 8, 2019, the Company and its two executive officers were
named in a putative securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned Kauffman v. Natural Health Trends Corp., Case No.
2:19-cv-00163.
The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock
between April 27, 2016 and January 5, 2019, inclusive, under (i)
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange
Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company
and Chris T. Sharng and Timothy S. Davidson (together, the
"Individual Defendants"), and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against the Individual Defendants.
The complaint alleges, in part, that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the legality of its
business operations in China, including running an allegedly
illegal multilevel marketing business. The complaint seeks an
indeterminate amount of damages, plus interest and costs.
On May 3, 2019, the court issued an order appointing Xia Yang as
lead plaintiff and appointing The Rosen Law Firm, P. A. as lead
counsel.
On June 3, 2019, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On June
27, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation seeking to postpone
briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss to allow the parties to
continue ongoing discussions, which stipulation was entered by the
court on July 1, 2019.
On September 6, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. After full briefing and oral argument, the court
issued an order on December 20, 2019, dismissing the complaint for
failure to adequately plead any false or misleading statement and
ordering that any amended complaint be filed on or before January
13, 2020.
On January 13, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of intent not to file
an amended complaint. On January 17, 2020, the court issued an
order dismissing the action with prejudice and ordering that
judgment be entered for Defendants.
On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff's opening brief is
currently due on June 1, 2020, and Defendants' responding brief is
currently due on July 1, 2020.
Natural Health said, "Defendants believe that these claims are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them."
Natural Health Trends Corp., a direct-selling and e-commerce
company, provides personal care, wellness, and lifestyle products
under the NHT Global brand. Natural Health Trends Corp. was founded
in 1988 and is headquartered in Kowloon, Hong Kong.
NCAA: Conditional Class Certification under FLSA Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RALPH "TREY" JOHNSON,
STEPHANIE KERKELES, NICHOLAS LABELLA, CLAUDIA RUIZ, JACOB
WILLEBEEK-LEMAIR, and ALEXA COOKE individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, a/k/a the NCAA, and the following NCAA Division I
Member Schools as representatives of a Defendant Class of all
private and semi-public NCAA Division I Member Schools: BUCKNELL
UNIVERSITY, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, DREXEL UNIVERSITY, DUQUESNE
UNIVERSITY, FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIVERSITY, FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, LA
SALLE UNIVERSITY, LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, LEHIGH UNIVERSITY, MONMOUTH
UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, RIDER UNIVERSITY, ROBERT MORRIS
UNIVERSITY, SACRED HEART UNIVERSITY, SETON HALL UNIVERSITY, SAINT
FRANCIS UNIVERSITY, SAINT JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY, SAINT PETER'S
UNIVERSITY, VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE,
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, RUTGERS, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY,
and TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:19-cv-05230-JP (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification of their claims under
the Fair Labor Standards Act;
2. approving Court-facilitated notice of this action to
similarly-situated persons;
3. expediting disclosure by the Defendants to themselves of
the identity and contact information of all similarly-
situated persons; and
4. awarding themselves such other and further relief that the
Court seems just and proper.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences. There are currently 353
American colleges and universities classified as Division I for
NCAA competition, and 49 of the 50 U.S. states, plus the District
of Columbia, are represented.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Proposed Counsel for the Members of
the Proposed FLSA Collective, the Proposed Pennsylvania Class, the
Proposed New York Class and the Proposed Connecticut Class, are:
Michael J. Willemin, Esq.
Renan F. Varghese, Esq.
Taylor J. Crabill, Esq.
85 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
E-mail: mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com
rvarghese@wigdorlaw.com
tcrabill@wigdorlaw.com
- and -
Paul L. McDonald, Esq.
PL MCDONALD LAW LLC
1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 238-3835
Facsimile: (267) 238-3801
E-mail: paul@plmcdonaldlaw.com
NOKIA CORP: Still Defends Suit over Alcatel-Lucent Integration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend
a class action suit related to the company's false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning its progress of integration of
Alcatel-Lucent S.A.
A litigation was filed on April 19, 2019 against the Group and
certain executives in the United States relating to allegations of
the Group making false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning its progress of integration of Alcatel-Lucent S.A,
including compliance practices identified during the integration
process and disclosed in the company's annual report on Form 20-f
on March 21, 2019.
The complaint was subsequently amended to include allegations of
the Group making false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning the Group's readiness for the transition to fifth
generation wireless technology.
Nokia Corporation (Nokia) has three operating segments: Devices &
Services; NAVTEQ, and Nokia Siemens Networks. Devices & Services is
responsible for developing and managing the Company's portfolio of
mobile products, as well as designing and developing services,
including applications and content. NAVTEQ is a provider of
digital map information and related location-based content and
services for mobile navigation devices, automotive navigation
systems, Internet-based mapping applications, and government and
business solutions. Nokia Siemens Networks provides mobile and
fixed network infrastructure, communications and networks service
platforms, as well as professional services and business solutions,
to operators and service providers. In August 2012, the Company
sold a portfolio consisting of over 500 patents and patent
applications worldwide to Vringo Inc.
OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend
a re-filed class action suit in Missouri.
In March 2017, a putative class action case was re-filed against
the Company and other parties in Missouri state court after the
predecessor case was dismissed without prejudice by the federal
court.
The Company successfully removed the case to federal court and is
currently vigorously defending the case.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Omega Flex, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells flexible metal hoses and accessories in the United States and
internationally. The company was formerly known as Tofle America,
Inc. and changed its name to Omega Flex, Inc. in 1996. Omega Flex,
Inc. was founded in 1975 and is based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
OPTIMAL LOGISTICS: Tabiel Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omeed Tabiel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OPTIMAL LOGISTICS LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-03642 (C.D. Cal.,
April 20, 2020), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendants
in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically
the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby, invading the
Plaintiff's privacy.
The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place
its call to the Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The
Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes.
According to the complaint, the Defendant did not possess the
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice on its cellular telephone. The Defendant called the Plaintiff
in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the
National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.
The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Los Angeles,
California.
OPTIMAL LOGISTICS LLC is a shipping services 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 Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
ORANGE AVE CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Perez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MISAEL AREIZAGA PEREZ a/k/a MISAEL PEREZ and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ORANGE AVE CONSULTANTS LLC d/b/a
GITTO'S PIZZA, Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-00580-ACC-EJK (M.D.
Fla., April 3, 2020) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
half-time overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant to duties as a pizza cook, prep
cook, dishwasher and cleaning employee from approximately November
15, 2018 to February 20, 2020.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in
a week period while employed by Defendant and was paid at different
wage rate throughout his employment whereby he was not paid
overtime by Defendant. Allegedly, Defendant willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate and one-half his regular rate
for every hour that he worked in excess of forty.
Moreover, Plaintiff was fired due to discriminatory reason on or
about February 20, 2020.
Orange Ave Consultants LLC is the operator of Gitto's Pizza, a
pizza restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
THE PALMA LAW GROUP
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305)446-1500
Fax: (305)446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
OREGON: Maney et al. Sue Over Lack of COVID-19 Measures in Jails
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL MANEY; GARY CLIFT; GEORGE NULPH; THERON HALL; DAVID HART;
MICAH RHODES; and SHERYL LYNN SUBLET, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. KATE BROWN; COLETTE
PETERS; HEIDI STEWARD; MIKE GOWER; MARK NOOTH; ROB PERSSON; and KEN
JESKE, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-00570-SB (D. Or., April 6,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the
Constitutions of the U.S. and Oregon.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to implement
critical measures to prevent outbreaks of the Novel Coronavirus or
COVID-19 at the Oregon Department of Corrections facilities and
also failed to create a health care system that can provide the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated prisoners access to
prevention, testing and treatment for COVID-19.
The Plaintiffs are all prisoners at Oregon correctional facilities
with existing medical conditions and are therefore at increased
risk of a serious COVID-19 infection and death. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Juan C. Chavez, Esq.
Brittney Plesser, Esq.
Franz Bruggemeier, Esq.
Alex Meggitt, Esq.
OREGON JUSTICE RESOURCE CENTER
Portland, OR 97208
Telephone: (503) 944-2270
Facsimile: (971) 275-1839
- and -
David F. Sugerman, Esq.
SUGERMAN LAW OFFICE
707 SW Washington St Ste 600
Portland OR 97205
Telephone: (503) 228-6474
Facsimile: (503) 228-2556
- and -
Benjamin Haile, Esq.
OREGON JUSTICE RESOURCE CENTER
Portland, OR 97208
Telephone: (503) 212-4434
Facsimile: (801) 650-2299
E-mail: attorneyhaile@gmail.com
PARTSBASE INC: Certification of Martin's Collective Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SHAWN MARTIN, Individually,
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PARTSBASE INC
d/b/a GOVGISTICS and GOVGISTICS, INC., Case No. 9:20-CV-80235-DMM
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an Order:
1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
for the putative class of similarly situated;
2. requiring the Defendants to produce the names, addresses,
telephone numbers, and email addresses of each putative
class member; and
3. authorizing notice of this action be sent to:
"all currently or formerly employed ISR that were employed
by Defendants within the preceding three years."
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants willfully failed to pay
non-exempt ISR overtime compensation and willfully failed to
properly track and record their work hours in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is joined by 13 former Inside
Sales Representatives, all of whom worked at Defendants' corporate
office in Boca Raton, Florida.
PartsBase operates the world's largest B2B online parts locator
service for the aviation, aerospace and defense industries.[CC]
PBF HOLDING: Continues to Defend Goldstein Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Arnold Goldstein, et al. v.
Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.
On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF LLC, and the company's
subsidiaries, PBF Western Region and Torrance Refining and the
manager of our Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil were named
as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court") and alleges
negligence, strict liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing
private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public
nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from
the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion
at the Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by
ExxonMobil.
The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims
relate to the ESP explosion, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility
for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to
the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.
On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff.
On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the
judge took the matter under submission. On April 1, 2019, the judge
issued an order denying class certification.
On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Petition with the Ninth
Circuit for Permission to Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class
Certification. The appeal is currently pending with the Ninth
Circuit.
On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District
Court for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
On May 22, 2019, the judge granted Plaintiffs' motion. The company
filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019. The
Plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019.
On October 15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited
classes of property owners, rejecting two other proposed subclasses
based on negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous
activities. The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for
ground contamination and nuisance for air emissions.
PBF Holding said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."
PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company sells its products
throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the
United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and
Canada, and is able to ship products to other international
destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Liberty Resources Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LIBERTY RESOURCES, INC.;
DISABLED IN ACTION OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC; PHILADELPHIA ADAPT; TONY
BROOKS; LIAM DOUGHERTY; FRAN FULTON; and LOUIS OLIVO v. THE CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA, Case No. 2:19-cv-03846-HB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court for an order certifying the lawsuit as a class
action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(2).
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania's largest city, is notable for its rich
history, on display at the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall (where
the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were signed) and
other American Revolutionary sites.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Meredith J. Weaver, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
Telephone: (510) 665-8644
Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
E-mail: mweaver@dralegal.org
- and -
David Ferleger, Esq.
DAVID FERLEGER LAW OFFICE
413 Johnson St.
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Tel: (215) 887-0123
E-mail: david@ferleger.com
- and -
Michelle Caiola, Esq.
Andrea Kozak-Oxnard, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10017-5621
Telephone: (212) 644-8644
Facsimile: (212) 644-8636
E-mail: mcaiola@dralegal.org
akozakoxnard@dralegal.org
PLYMOUTH CTY., MA: Baez Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McDonald et al. The
case is styled as Anthony Baez, Jonathan Bermudez, Jermaine
Gonsalves, Dedrick Lindsey, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Petitioners v. Joseph D. McDonald, Jr., Sheriff
of Plymouth County, in his official capacity; Antone Moniz,
Superintendent of the Plymouth County Correctional Facility, in his
official capacity; John and Jane Does, in their individual and
official capacities, Respondents, Case No. 1:20-cv-10753 (D. Mass.,
April 17, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus for Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus.
Sheriff Joseph D. McDonald, Jr., was first elected in November
2004, and sworn into office by then Massachusetts Governor W. Mitt
Romney on January 5, 2005.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
Daniel J. Cloherty, Esq.
Saraa Basaria, Esq.
TODD & WELD
One Federal Street, 27th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 720-2626
Email: dcloherty@toddweld.com
sbasaria@toddweld.com
- and -
Emily R. Schulman, Esq.
WILMER HALE LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 526-6077
Fax: (617) 526-5000
Email: emily.schulman@wilmerhale.com
PRIMEXX ENERGY: West Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry West, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
PRIMEXX ENERGY PARTNERS, LTD, Case No. 7:20-cv-00098 (W.D. Tex.,
April 20, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff and other workers regularly worked more than 40 hours
a week; but these workers never received overtime for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, says the complaint.
Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant
classified the Plaintiff as an independent contractor and paid
these workers a flat amount for each day worked (a day-rate)
without overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff worked for Primexx as a Wellsite Supervisor (also
referred to as a Drilling Superintendent) from October 2018 until
March 2019.
Primexx is an oil and gas exploration and production limited
company with an extensive operating history.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PROGENICS PHARMA: Johnson Files Suit Over Lantheus Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eric J.
Ende, Bradley L. Campbell, David W. Mims, Karen Jean Ferrante, Ann
L. Macdougall, Gerard Ber and Heinz Mausli, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-02847 (S.D. N.Y., April 6, 2020), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the merger between Progenics
Pharmaceuticals and Lantheus Holdings, Inc., rescinding it in the
event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs
of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Progenics
shareholders would receive 0.2502 of a share of Lantheus common
stock for each share of Progenics stock they own. Upon completion
of the merger, Progenics shareholders would own approximately 35%
and Lantheus shareholders would own approximately 65% of the common
stock outstanding in the combined company.
According to the complaint, the registration statement lacked the
financial projections for Progenics, summary of certain valuation
analyses conducted by Progenics' financial advisor, BofA Securities
Inc. in support of its opinion that the merger consideration.
Progenics is an oncology company focused on the development and
commercialization of targeted medicines and artificial intelligence
to find, fight and follow cancer. Johnson claims that Progenics is
well-positioned for financial growth and the merger consideration
fails to adequately compensate its shareholders. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 983-9330
Fax: (212) 983-9331
Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Opposition to Class Certification Bid Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL A. LOPEZ, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT
INSURANCE CO., Case No. 0:18-cv-61844-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge William P. Dimitrouleas entered an order:
1. approving the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Lurana S. Snow;
2. overruling Progressive Select Insurance Co.'s Objections
to the Report and Recommendation;
3. granting Plaintiff Jonathan Morgan's motion to intervene
for purpose of serving as class representative;
4. striking as moot Progressive Select Insurance Company's
opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
5. denying without prejudice to refile Progressive Select
Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment and
Lopez's motion for partial summary judgment;
6. directing Mr. Lopez to file a status report specifying
whether he intends to continue pursuing his individual
claims on or before April 27, 2020; and
7. directing prior Counsel for Mr. Lopez to provide a copy of
this Order to Plaintiff Lopez and to file notice with the
Court of doing so.
These deadlines are set:
a. Plaintiff Morgan was required to file an Amended Complaint
by April 13, 2020. That amended complaint will relate
back to the date the original complaint was filed on June
28, 2018.
b. The Defendant was required to file an Answer to Morgan's
Amended Complaint by April 20, 2020.
c. Discovery as to Intervenor Plaintiff Morgan's claims shall
be permitted on or before May 20, 2020.
d. Any Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or
before May 20, 2020.
e. Any substantive motions, including motions for summary
judgment, shall be filed on or before June 3, 2020.
The case is reset for trial on the two-week calendar
commencing Monday, September 14, 2020. Counsel for all
parties shall appear at a calendar call commencing at
10:00 A.M. on Friday, September 11, 2020. Unless
instructed otherwise by subsequent order, the trial and
all other proceedings in this case shall be conducted in
Courtroom 205B at the U.S. Courthouse, 299 E. Broward
Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
These pretrial deadlines are reset:
a. Mediation Cutoff:
60 days before start of the trial=s two-week calendar
b. Mandatory Pretrial Stipulation:
Friday, August 28, 2020
c. Motions in Limine:
Friday, August 28, 2020
d. Responses to Motions in Limine:
Friday, September 4, 2020
e. Instructions:
Friday, September 4, 2020
f. Voir Dire Questions:
Calendar call
g. Exhibit List for Court:
First day of Trial (impeachment excepted)
h. Witness List for Court:
First day of Trial (impeachment excepted).[CC]
R&H INDUSTRIES: MacDonald Sues Over Auto-Dialed Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Darren MacDonald, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. R&H Industries, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00682 (D. Ariz., April 6, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
R&H Industries, LLC does business as Elite Solar Concepts. Elite
Solar connects consumers with partner companies that provide solar
power installations in their homes of the consumers. Its marketing
plan includes placing calls en masse to consumers in order to
solicit sales of solar installation systems.
MacDonald claims to have received autodialed telemarketing calls
from Elite despite being registered on the National Do Not Call
registry. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Tel: (305) 773-6641
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Nathan Brown, Esq.
BROWN PATENT LAW
15100 N 78th Way Suite 203
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Phone: (602) 529-3474
Email: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com
RADIUS GLOBAL: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in O'Boyle Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANNE O'BOYLE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RADIUS GLOBAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00572-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Marin County
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The RealReal, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit pending before Marin County
Superior Court.
On September 10, 2019, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the company, its officers and directors
and the underwriters of its Initial Public Offering (IPO) in the
Superior Court of the State of California in the County of San
Mateo.
Three additional purported class actions, also alleging claims
arising from the IPO were subsequently filed in Marin County and
San Francisco County Superior Courts.
The San Mateo case was voluntarily dismissed, refiled in Marin
County Superior Court and consolidated with the cases there.
On January 10, 2020, the Marin County plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint and defendants' demurrer is due on
March 13, 2020. The plaintiffs in the San Francisco Superior Court
case have filed a request for dismissal.
Separately an additional purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on November 25, 2019.
On February 12, 2020, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the federal
action and on February 18, 2020, the Court ordered a schedule for
the filing of an amended complaint and any motion to dismiss that
amended complaint.
These complaints allege claims under the Securities Act of 1933 on
behalf of a purported class of those who acquired the company's
stock pursuant to or traceable to the registration statement for
its IPO.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading
statements in the registration statement regarding certain of the
company's key financial and operating metrics, and related to the
Company's authentication processes.
The complaints seek, among other things, damages and interest,
rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs.
RealReal said, "While we intend to vigorously defend against this
litigation, the cases are at a very early stage and there can be no
assurance that we will be successful in our defense. For this same
reason, we cannot currently estimate the loss or the range of
possible losses we may experience in connection with this
litigation."
The RealReal, Inc. owns and operates a members-only consignment
marketplace for luxury goods. The Company specializes in curating
and authenticating a full range of previously owned luxury products
such as clothing, shoes, accessories, and jewelry that are sold on
consignment. The RealReal markets its products and services
throughout the United States. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.
RETAIL RECOVERY: Certification of Classes & SubClasses Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as FAITH TWYMAN and JORGE
GALLINAT, on behalf of themselves and those similarly v. RETAIL
RECOVERY SERVICE OF NJ, INC.; RAYMOND F. MEISENBACHER, JR.; THOMAS
M. MEISENBACHER; RAYMOND MEISENBACHER & SONS, ESQS., P.C.; and JOHN
DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:16-cv-02910-SCM (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge
Steve Mannion entered an order:
1. granting motion for preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement, and directing the parties to comply with the
schedule as set forth in the order and to comply with the
terms of the settlement agreement;
2. certifying the Settlement Classes for purposes of
settlement:
Class A (Twyman):
"all natural persons with addresses within the State of
New Jersey against whom, beginning May 20, 2015 to
December 31, 2016, Raymond Meisenbacher & Sons, Esqs.,
P.C., filed and served a complaint in attempts to collect
a consumer debt on behalf of Retail Recovery Service of
NJ, Inc.";
Subclass A:
"all members of Class A who paid any money or from whom
Raymond Meisenbacher & Sons, Esqs., P.C., or Retail
Recovery Service of NJ, Inc., collected any money";
Subclass B:
"all members of Class B who did not pay any money or from
whom Raymond Meisenbacher & Sons, Esqs., P.C., or Retail
Recovery Service of NJ, Inc., did not collect any money."
Class B (Gallinat):
"all natural persons with addresses within the State of
New Jersey against whom, beginning May 20, 2015 to
December 31, 2016, Raymond Meisenbacher & Sons, Esqs.,
P.C., filed and served a complaint in attempts to collect
a consumer debt on behalf of Surgical Specialists of North
Jersey";
3. appointing Yongmoon Kim of Kim Law Firm LLC as Class
Counsel.
4. appointing Angeion Group, LLC as the Settlement
Administrator responsible for administering the settlement
according to the terms set forth in the Settlement
Agreement;
5. directing the Defendants, no later than five days after
the entry of the Order, to provide the Settlement
Administrator with an electronic database containing the
identifying information of Settlement Class members
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement; and
6. scheduling a Fairness Hearing on July 23, 2020.
Retail Recovery is an New Jersey collection agency.[CC]
REXALL SUNDOWN: Class Certification Bid in Seegert Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SANDRA SEEGERT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REXALL SUNDOWN,
INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-01243-BEN-JLB (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Roger T. Benitez entered an order:
1. granting Defendant's motion for summary; and
2. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The Court said the Plaintiff chose to "rely on internal Rexall
documents to theorize that Rexall 'intended' to make implied
disease claims." This approach falls flat on analysis however
because the Defendant complied with federal labeling requirements
for dietary supplements. Therefore, the Plaintiff's state law false
advertising claims under the California Unfair Competition Law and
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California False
Advertising Law are expressly preempted by the federal Nutrition
Labeling and Education Act.
This case arises out of Defendant's alleged false statements about
the joint health benefits of its Osteo Bi-Flex product line. The
Plaintiff alleges she purchased Osteo Bi-Flex Triple Strength on
February 20, 2017, from a Walgreens retail store, for approximately
$31.99. The Defendant's packaging and advertisements for Osteo
Bi-Flex represent it supports joint health, as well as improving
"Range of Motion," and "helps strengthen joints while helping to
maintain joint cartilage essential for comfortable joint movement".
According to the Complaint, these representations are false because
studies show that Defendant's Osteo Bi-Flex products cannot provide
the promised benefits.
Rexall manufactures nutritional vitamins, supplements, and consumer
health products. The company offers products including amino acids,
B-complex, beauty aids, calcium formulas, food supplements, health
supplements, herbs, minerals, and multiple vitamin formulas.[CC]
RFMS INC: Faces Cosgrove Class Suit in Illinois Circuit Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RFMS, Inc. The case
is captioned as ROBERTA J COSGROVE and TRACY ST. CLAIR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
RFMS, INC d/b/a LIBERTY VILLAGE, Case No. 20-L-00091 (Ill. Cir.,
Peoria Cty., April 7, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael P McCuskey. The suit
demands over $ 50,000 in damages.
A case management conference will be held on September 11, 2020.
RFMS is a hospital and health care company based in Galesburg,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mara Baltabols, Esq.
BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS, & OPPENHEIM, LLC
134 N LaSalle, Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Taaffe Suit Moved From Florida to California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS TAAFFE v. ROBINHOOD
MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, and ROBINHOOD SECURITIES,
LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-00513 (Filed March 4, 2020), was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco) on April 17, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-02669-JSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants breached their duty to
exercise reasonable care in safeguarding and protecting his and
other class members' assets from the extended system failures
experienced on March 2, 2020, and March 3, 2020. He adds that the
Defendants further breached their duty by failing to provide
adequate support to the trading platform that it could continue to
function during an uptick in trading volume and user engagement.
Robinhood Markets is a financial services holding company.
Robinhood Financial is a full service securities firm engaged in
the retail sale of securities and various other financial
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrod Malone, Esq.
Michael D. Bressan, Esq.
Michael S. Taaffe, Esq.
SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP
240 S Pineapple Ave., 10th Floor
P.O. Box 49948
Sarasota, FL 34230-6948
Telephone: (941) 366-6660
Facsimile: (941) 366-3999
E-mail: jmalone@slk-law.com
mbressan@slk-law.com
MTaaffe@slk-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Dennis Parker Waggoner, Esq.
HILL WARD HENDERSON, PA
101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 3700
P.O. Box 2231
Tampa, FL 33602-5195
Telephone: (813) 221-3900
Facsimile: (813) 221-2900
E-mail: dennis.waggoner@hwhlaw.com
SAINT-GOBAIN: Certification of Rule 23 Classes Sought in "Baker"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHELE BAKER; CHARLES CARR;
ANGELA CORBETT; PAMELA FORREST; MICHAEL HICKEY, individually and as
parent and natural guardian of O.H., infant; KATHLEEN
MAIN-LINGENER; KRISTIN MILLER, as parent and natural guardian of
K.M., infant; JENNIFER PLOUFFE; SILVIA POTTER, individually and as
parent and natural guardian of C.P., infant; and DANIEL SCHUTTIG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORP., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL
INC. f/k/a ALLIED-SIGNAL INC. and/or ALLIEDSIGNAL LAMINATE SYSTEMS,
INC., E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY and 3M CO., the Plaintiffs
move the Court for an Order:
1. certifying the following four classes pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):
a. Municipal Water Property Damage Class
"all individuals who are or were owners of real
property that was supplied with drinking water from the
Village of Hoosick Falls municipal water supply, and
who purchased that property on or before December 16,
2015";
b. Private Well Water Property Damage Class
"all individuals who are or were owners of real
property located in the Contamination Zone that was
supplied with drinking water from a private well
contaminated with PFOA and who owned that property at
the time the contamination of the property's private
well was discovered through a water test on or after
December 16, 2015"
c. Nuisance Damage Class
"all individuals who are or were owners or lessors of
real property located in the Contamination Zone that
was supplied with drinking water from a privately owned
well contaminated with PFOA, had a point-of-entry
treatment (POET) system installed to filter water from
that well, and who occupied that property at the time
the contamination of the property's private well was
discovered through a water test on or after December
16, 2015"; and
d. PFOA Invasion Injury Class
"all individuals who, for a period of at least six
months between 1996 and 2016, have (a) ingested PFOA-
contaminated water at their residence, which was
supplied with drinking water from the Village of
Hoosick Falls municipal water supply or from a PFOA-
contaminated private well in the Contamination Zone and
(b) suffered invasion and accumulation of PFOA in their
bodies as demonstrated by blood serum tests disclosing
a PFOA level in their blood above the average
background level of 1.86 ug/L; or any natural child
born to a female who meets and/or met this criteria at
the time of the child's birth and whose blood serum was
tested after birth disclosing a PFOA level above the
average background level of 1.86 ug/L". The following
individuals and/or entities are excluded from these
four classes: (i) Defendants, any entity or division in
which Defendants have a controlling interest, and their
legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns,
and successors; (ii) the Judge to whom this case is
assigned and the Judge's staff; (iii) any class counsel
or their immediate family members; (iv) any State or
any of its agencies; (v) the Village of Hoosick Falls
and the Town of Hoosick; and (vi) any individual who
would otherwise be included under one or more of the
class definitions above but who has filed a lawsuit for
personal injury alleging a PFOA-related illness caused
by exposure to PFOA contained in the Village of Hoosick
Falls municipal water supply or in a private well
contaminated with PFOA. In addition, any property
legally authorized for use in a commercial capacity
shall be excluded from the Municipal Water Property
Damage Class, the Private Well Water Property Damage
Class, and the Nuisance Damage Class.
As referred to in the class definitions, the
"Contamination Zone" shall mean, "all properties
located within the Town of Hoosick that have the zip
codes 12028, 12057, 12090 and 12089 except the
following properties: All addresses on White Creek
Road, Gates Road, Telford Road, St. Croix Road, Cobble
Hill Road, Battlefield Road, Cottrell Road, Stewart
Road, Beechwood Road, Burgess Road, Bayer Rd., Emmons
Road, Orebed Road, Mapletown Road (excluding homes
located on New York State Route 7 that also use that
name), Farmers Inn Road, Breese Hollow Road, Sipperly
Road and Cutoff Road; all addresses on New York State
Route 67 east of Cobble Hill road; all addresses on New
York State Route 7 east of the intersection with Route
279."
2. certifying the following class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2):
a. PFOA Invasion Injury Injunctive Relief Class:
"all individuals who, for a period of at least six
months between 1996 and 2016, have (a) ingested PFOA-
contaminated water at their residence, which was
supplied with drinking water from the Village of
Hoosick Falls municipal water supply or from a PFOA-
contaminated private well in the Contamination Zone and
(b) suffered invasion and accumulation of PFOA in their
bodies as demonstrated by blood serum tests disclosing
a PFOA level in their blood above the average
background level of 1.86 ug/L; or any natural child
born to a female who meets and/or met this criteria at
the time of the child's birth and whose blood serum was
tested after birth disclosing a PFOA level above the
average background level of 1.86 ug/L";
3. appointing the following Plaintiffs as representatives of
the classes:
a. Pamela Forrest, Kathleen Main-Lingener, Jennifer
Plouffe, Silvia Potter, and Daniel Schuttig as the
class representatives for the Municipal Water Property
Damage Class;
b. Michele Baker, Charles Carr, and Angela Corbett as the
class representatives for the Private Well Water
Property Damage Class;
c. Michele Baker, Charles Carr, and Angela Corbett as the
class representatives for the Nuisance Damage Class;
d. Charles Carr, Angela Corbett, Michael Hickey,
individually and as parent and natural guardian of
O.H., infant, Kathleen Main-Lingener, Kristin Miller,
as parent and natural guardian of K.M., infant, and
Silvia Potter, individually and as parent and natural
guardian of C.P., infant, as the class representatives
for the PFOA Invasion Injury Class; and
e. Charles Carr, Angela Corbett, Michael Hickey,
individually and as parent and natural guardian of
O.H., infant, Kathleen Main-Lingener, Kristin Miller,
as parent and natural guardian of K.M., infant, and
Silvia Potter, individually and as parent and natural
guardian of C.P., infant, as the class representative
for the PFOA Invasion Injury Injunctive Relief Class.
4. appointing as co-lead class counsel Robin L. Greenwald and
James J. Bilsborrow of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., and
Stephen G. Schwarz and Hadley L. Matarazzo of Faraci
Lange, LLP, and as Plaintiffs' liaison counsel John K.
Powers of Powers & Santola, LLP; and
5. certifying an issue class for liability pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) against (i)
Defendants Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. and
Honeywell International Inc. for causing PFOA to
contaminate class members' properties and bodies, and (ii)
Defendants E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company and 3M Co.
for failing to warn users of PFOA-containing products of
the environmental, health and safety risks posed by PFOA,
should the Court deny Plaintiffs' motion to certify any of
the four classes proposed pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).[CC]
The Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel are:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
rgreenwald@weitzlux.com
- and -
Stephen G. Schwarz, Esq.
Hadley L. Matarazzo, Esq.
FARACI LANGE, LLP
28 East Main Street, Suite 1100
Rochester, NY 14614
Telephone: (585) 325-5150
Facsimile: (585) 325-3285
E-mail: sschwarz@faraci.com
hmatarazzo@faraci.com
- and -
John K. Powers, Esq.
POWERS & SANTOLA, LLP
100 Great Oaks Boulevard
Albany, NY 12203
Telephone: (518) 465-5995
Facsimile: (585) 426-4012
E-mail: jpowers@powers-santola.com
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY: Underpays Social Workers, Marques et al Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
VIOLET MARQUEZ, LONGINA SHAW, and CHANTEIL GUY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-00693 (C.D. Cal., April 3, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful
conduct in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs were employed as non-exempt social workers, known as
Deputy Public Guardian, for the past three years.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs worked in excess of the
maximum hours but without payment of all of the overtime
compensation as required by the FLSA. Their overtime worked without
compensation includes break and meal periods, traveling and in the
field, and/or outside of the office. Allegedly, Defendants failed
to accurately record, report, and/or preserve records of hours
worked by Public Guardian social workers, including Plaintiffs.
County of San Bernardino is a legal subdivision of the State of
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C. Brooks Cutter, Esq.
John R. Parker, Esq.
Celine E. Cutter, Esq.
CUTTER LAW P.C.
401 Watt Ave., Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95864
Tel: (916)290-9400
Fax: (916)588-9330
Emails: bcutter@cutterlaw.com
jparker@cutterlaw.com
ccutter@cutterlaw.com
- and –
Megan A. Richmond, Esq.
MEGAN A. RICHMOND, APC
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101-8495
Tel: (619)577-4253
Fax: (619)577-4250
Email: megan@therichmondfirm.com
SEFAH LLC: Myers Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Myers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEFAH LLC d/b/a FOUR SEASONS DINER & RESTAURANT and
SEFIK GUNAYDIN, Case No. 2:20-cv-01956 (E.D. Pa., April 20, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants failed to properly pay the Plaintiff
minimum wages and overtime compensation, and unlawfully retained
tips earned by the Plaintiff, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants maintained an unlawful
tip pool, unlawfully retained a portion of the tips earned by the
Plaintiff, and failed to accurately track and pay the Plaintiff for
all hours worked in violation of the FLSA and PMWA. The Plaintiff
further contends that he is owed unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation which were denied them as a result of Defendants'
unlawful pay practices. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of
40 hours per week, but was not properly compensated for their work
in that the Plaintiff was not paid an overtime premium at 1.5 times
their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants, who was
employed in the position of Server.
SEFAH LLC owns and operates the Four Seasons Diner & Restaurant
located at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Groh, Esq.
Michael Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 267-273-1054
Facsimile: 215-525-0210
Email: mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
SELRICO SERVICES: Barrera Seeks Overtime Pay for Supervisors
------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE BARRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SELRICO SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-00429-XR (W.D. Tex., April 3, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a salaried Supervisor from
July 2019 until November 2019.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff's primary responsibilities
include restocking janitorial equipment, taking inventory,
preparing the schedule for approximately ten employees, doing
payroll for those same employees, and communicating with
Defendant's clients. Supervisors, including Plaintiff, regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week but were not paid overtime by
Defendant because they were misclassified as exempt from overtime
pay under the FLSA.
The complaint alleges that Defendant willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated supervisors an overtime rate
of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours
worked over forty in each week.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees.
Selrico Services, Inc. provides custodial and other services to its
clients. [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
Tel: (501)221-0088
Fax: (888)787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
SEXUAL MD SOLUTIONS: Novus Sues over ESWT Treatment Cost Increase
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NOVUS ANTI-AGING CENTER, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEXUAL MD SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03152 (C.D. Cal., April 3, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
unlawful agreement to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman
Act of the U.S. Code Section 1, unfair competition in violation of
California Business and Professional Code Section 17200, and unjust
enrichment.
Novus Anti-Aging Center, Inc. is a medical clinic that treats
patients with erectile dysfunction using therapies including
extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT).
According to the complaint, Defendant SMDS engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme with third parties Tissue Regeneration
Technologies, LLC (TRT) and General Patent, LLC that harms both
doctors and patients by limiting treatment options for erectile
dysfunction. A license agreement among the three ESWT providers was
signed on or about September 17, 2018 which purpose is to
unlawfully restrict competition in the ESWT-ED Market.
The complaint asserts that the price of ESWT treatment programs has
increased and its quality has decreased for Novus and the Classes
because of the anticompetitive scheme by SMDS and TRT.
Plaintiff and members of the Classes have all suffered and will
continue to suffer, harm and damages as a result of Defendant's
unlawful and wrongful conduct.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop the unlawful conducts of
Defendants, actual damages, compensatory damages, equitable relief
in the form of restitution and/or disgorgement of all unlawful or
illegal profits received by Defendant, cost and expenses including
reasonable attorneys' fees, and pre- and post- judgment interest.
Sexual MD Solutions, LLC provides ESWT Programs for the treatment
of erectile dysfunction to the medical providers who treat erectile
dysfunction patients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua M. Masur, Esq.
Rasheed M. McWilliams, Esq.
Jarod M. Bona, Esq.
Jon F. Cieslak, Esq.
ZUBER LAWLER & DEL DUCA LLP
350 S. Grand Ave., 32nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 596-5620
Fax: (213) 596-5621
Emails: jmasur@zuberlawler.com
rmcwilliams@zuberlawler.com
jbona@zuberlawler.com
jcieslak@zuberlawler.com
- and –
Jayashree Mitra, Esq.
ZUBER LAWLER & DEL DUCA LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 4430
New York, NY 10119
Tel: (212) 899-9830
Email: jmitra@zuberlawler.com
SHATOS AUTO: Faces Roberts-Glover FDUTPA Suit Over Service Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
DERYLN ROBERTS-GLOVER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SHATOS AUTO SALES & TRANSPORT LLC
(Dealership), Case No. 105943443 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty.,
April 7, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act when it charged the
Plaintiff and the proposed class members for a predelivery service
"Other" fee without having printed on all documents that include a
line item for such predelivery service fee.
The Plaintiff says that on March 13, 2018, she went to the
Dealership to look at vehicles. The Dealership asked her to
consider a 2006 Mercedes-Benz E-Class bearing Vehicle
Identification Number WDBUF87J26X199273. She agreed to purchase the
Vehicle and, to that end, entered into a Buyer's Order (Sales
Contract) with the Dealership. Pursuant to the terms of the Sales
Contract, the Dealership charged her a cash price of $6,469.34. The
Dealership also charged her $289.10 for an Other" fee, which Ms.
Roberts anticipates was a Dealer Fee.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages in excess of $30,000
exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys' fees, for declaratory
and injunctive relief, and for recovery of attorneys' fees and
costs.
Shatos Auto sells pre-owned cars.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger D. Mason, II, Esq.
Autumn D. Tolar, Esq.
ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A.
4610 Central Ave., Suite B
Saint Petersburg, FL 33711
Telephone: (813) 304-2131
E-mail: rmason@flautolawyer.com
atolar@flautolawyer.com
admin@flautolawyer.com
SI-BONE INC: Settlement Agreement Executed in Fromer Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SI-BONE, Inc., said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the case,
Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc. v. SI-BONE, Inc. (Civil Action
No. 5:19-cv-633-SVK,) have executed a definitive settlement
agreement.
On February 6, 2019, a putative class action captioned Eric B.
Fromer Chiropractic, Inc. ("Plaintiff") v. SI-BONE, Inc. (Civil
Action No. 5:19-cv-633-SVK), was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California.
The complaint alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (the "TCPA") on behalf of an individual and a
putative class of persons alleged to be similarly situated.
The complaint alleges that we sent invitations to an educational
dinner event to health care providers by way of facsimile
transmission. The TCPA prohibits using a fax machine to send
unsolicited advertisements not including proper opt-out
instructions or to send unsolicited advertisements to persons with
whom the sender did not have an established business relationship.
The plaintiff sought various forms of relief, including statutory
damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the
alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and
willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction
prohibiting us from sending or having sent advertisements by way of
facsimile transmission.
On December 23, 2019 the parties filed a joint stipulation of
dismissal of the case in the District Court in the Northern
District of California and on January 14, 2020, the parties
executed a definitive settlement agreement (the "Settlement
Agreement"), pursuant to which, the company agreed to settle all
disputes regarding the advertising faxes to the settlement class.
SI-BONE said, "As this lawsuit is being resolved through a
negotiated settlement and class resolution process, we believe that
we will incur a loss associated with resolution of the claims
against us. We accrued a litigation expense of $3.2 million during
the year ended December 31, 2019 within general and administrative
expenses in the consolidated financial statements. The accrual
reflects the estimable and probable costs that we may incur based
on estimated claims submitted by members of the settlement class,
as defined in the Settlement Agreement. The final disposition of
the lawsuit may result in a loss in excess of the aggregate
recorded amount."
SI-BONE, Inc., a medical device company, develops and
commercializes a proprietary minimally invasive surgical implant
system in the United States and Internationally. It offers iFuse,
an implant system to fuse the sacroiliac joint to treat sacroiliac
joint dysfunction that causes lower back pain. The company was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California.
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re SmileDirectClub, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 19-1169-IV (TN Chancery Court filed December
20, 2019), is pending.
From September to December 2019, a number of purported stockholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee and in state courts in Tennessee,
Michigan and New York against the company, members of its board of
directors, certain of its current officers, and the underwriters of
its initial public offering (IPO).
The following nine complaints have been filed to date: Mancour v.
SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-1169-IV (TN Chancery Court filed
9/27/19), Vang v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2316 (TN Circuit Court
filed 9/30/19), Fernandez v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2371 (TN
Circuit Court filed 10/4/19), Wei Wei v. SmileDirectClub, Inc.,
19-1254-III (TN Chancery Court filed 10/18/19), Andre v.
SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-12883 (E.D. Mich. filed 10/2/19),
Ginsberg v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-09794 (S.D.N.Y. filed
10/23/19), Franchi v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-962 (M.D. Tenn.
filed 10/29/19), Nurlybayev v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-177527-CB
(Oakland County, MI Circuit Court filed 10/30/19), Sasso v.
Katzman, et al., No. 657557/2019 (NY Supreme Court filed 12/18/19).
In December 2019, the Fernandez, Vang, Mancour and Wei Wei actions
were consolidated as In re SmileDirectClub, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 19-1169-IV (TN Chancery Court filed December 20, 2019).
The complaints all allege, among other things, that the
registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on August 16, 2019, and accompanying amendments,
and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on September 13, 2019, in
connection with our initial public offering were inaccurate and
misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading, and omitted to state material facts required to be
stated therein.
The complaints seek unspecified money damages, other equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. All of the actions are in
the preliminary stages.
On February 26, 2020, Defendants prevailed on its motion to dismiss
the Michigan state court action.
On January 22, 2020, the New York state court action was stayed.
On February 10, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss or stay the
Tennessee state court action.
The Company denies any alleged wrongdoing and intends to vigorously
defend against these actions.
SmileDirectClub, Inc. operates a teledentistry platform that
provides members with a customized clear aligner therapy treatment
in the United States and internationally. The company manages the
end-to-end process, which include marketing, aligner manufacturing,
fulfillment, treatment by a doctor, and monitoring through
completion of their treatment proprietary with a network of
approximately 240 state licensed orthodontists and general dentists
through its teledentistry platform, SmileCheck. It offers aligners,
impression kits, whitening gels, and retainers. The company was
founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Continues to Defend Ciccio Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Ciccio, et al. v.
SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn.).
In September 2019, a putative class action on behalf of a consumer
and three orthodontists was brought against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Ciccio, et al.
v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D.
Tenn.).
The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranty, false
advertising under the Lanham Act, common law fraud, and various
state consumer protection statutes relating to our advertising.
The company recently filed a motion to strike and a motion to
dismiss the providers' claims.
In January 2020, one of the putative consumers who withdrew from
the above action filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking to
compel us to arbitrate.
The consumer plaintiff simultaneously filed a putative class
arbitration in the American Arbitration Association, pursuing
substantially similar claims. This consumer and the original
consumer plaintiff in the Middle District of Tennessee litigation
have since sought to rejoin the Middle District of Tennessee
litigation or, in the alternative, to intervene.
The company had filed its motion in response to oppose the consumer
plaintiffs' motion to rejoin or intervene. Litigation is in the
pleading stage and discovery has not yet commenced.
The Company denies any alleged wrongdoing and intends to defend
against these actions vigorously.
SmileDirectClub, Inc. operates a teledentistry platform that
provides members with a customized clear aligner therapy treatment
in the United States and internationally. The company manages the
end-to-end process, which include marketing, aligner manufacturing,
fulfillment, treatment by a doctor, and monitoring through
completion of their treatment proprietary with a network of
approximately 240 state licensed orthodontists and general dentists
through its teledentistry platform, SmileCheck. It offers aligners,
impression kits, whitening gels, and retainers. The company was
founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.
STATE AUTO: Underpays Property Insurance Claim, Cedarview Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEDARVIEW MART, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE AUTO PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00107-NBB-RP (N.D. Miss.,
April 2, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged breach of contract in violation of Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff's property bearing Policy No. BOP2759642 was insured
pursuant to an insurance contract with Defendant.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff made a claim against the
Policy because its property located on the Insured Premises
suffered direct physical loss caused by covered perils on or about
January 10, 2020. Defendant determined that the Loss was covered by
the terms of the Policy and calculated its actual cash value (ACV)
payment obligation to Plaintiff by using "replacement cost less
depreciation" methodology.
Allegedly, Plaintiff was underpaid on its ACV claim because
Defendant unlawfully withheld labor costs as depreciation, thereby
breaching its obligations under the Cedarview Policy.
State Auto Property and Casualty Company is a national insurer that
provides personal and commercial lines property coverage. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Brandon McWherter
McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBIT PLC
341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
Franklin, TN 37067
Tel: (615)354-1144
Email: Brandon@msb.law
- and –
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON
TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
201 West Short St., Suite 800
Lexington, KY 40507
Tel: (859)225-3731
Email: edp@austinmehr.com
- and –
T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
LARSON KING, LLP
30 7th Street E., Suite 800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Tel: (651)312-6510
Email: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com
STERLING BANCORP: Faces Okla. Police Retirement System Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 6, 2020, that the
company is defending against a shareholder class action suit
entitled, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. Sterling
Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10490-AJT-EAS
The Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and other parties have been named as defendants in a
shareholder class action captioned Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-10490-AJT-EAS, filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.
This action alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
primarily with respect to disclosures concerning the Bank’s
residential lending practices that were made in the Company's
registration statement and prospectus for its initial public
offering, in subsequent periodic filings with the SEC, and during
earnings calls.
Sterling Bancorp said, "While the Company intends to vigorously
defend this action, it is too early to determine the potential
outcome."
Sterling Bancorp operates as the bank holding company for Sterling
National Bank that provides various banking services to commercial,
consumer, and municipal clients in the United States. The Company
accepts deposit products, including checking, money market,
savings, time, and interest and non-interest bearing demand
deposits, as well as certificates of deposit and mortgage escrow
funds. It was founded in 1888 and is based in Montebello, New
York.
STITCH FIX: California Securities Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Stitch Fix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 1, 2020, that the motion seeking
dismissal of a consolidated class action suit before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California remains
pending.
On October 11, 2018, October 26, 2018, November 16, 2018, and
December 10, 2018, four putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the company and certain of its officers.
The four lawsuits each make the same allegations of violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the and its
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding our active client growth and strategy with
respect to television advertising between June 2018 and October
2018.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The four lawsuits have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has
been appointed. On September 18, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the
consolidated class action lawsuits filed a consolidated complaint
for violation of the federal securities laws.
On October 28, 2019, the company and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The lead plaintiff
filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 9, 2019,
and the company and the other defendants filed its reply in support
of the company's motion to dismiss on December 30, 2019.
The court has taken the motion under submission.
Stitch Fix said, "We believe these claims are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against them."
Stitch Fix, Inc. operates as an online subscription and personal
shopping platform. The Company offers shirts, jackets, sweaters,
blazers, leggings, vests, scarfs, jeans, loafers, and boots for men
and women. Stitch Fix serves customers in the United States. Stitch
Fix, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.
SURFACE ONCOLOGY: Says Ang Class Suit Concluded
-----------------------------------------------
Surface Oncology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Ang v. Surface Oncology, Inc., et al., No. 655304/2019
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 13, 2019), has been concluded.
On September 13, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action against the company, certain of its
directors and officers, or the Individual Defendants, and the
underwriters in its initial public offering, collectively, the
Defendants, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
captioned Ang v. Surface Oncology, Inc., et al., No. 655304/2019
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 13, 2019).
The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of the company's common stock in and/or traceable to its April 19,
2018 initial public offering (the first day of trading of its
common stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market) and alleged violations of
Section 11 (against all Defendants) and 15 (against the Company and
the Individual Defendants) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants made false or misleading
statements in the company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 for
its initial public offering regarding SRF231 and hematologic
toxicities allegedly caused by SRF231.
The lawsuit sought, among other things, compensatory damages and
interest thereon, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.
On November 1, 2019, the company and the other Defendants moved to
dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on the grounds that the facts
and documentary evidence established that the company's initial
public offering documents were true and accurate in all material
respects.
Based upon the company's arguments and confidential discussions
between its counsel and counsel for the Plaintiff, on December 3,
2019, the Plaintiff notified the Court that it wished to
voluntarily dismiss the case.
As required by Court Order, the Plaintiff provided notice to all
members of the purported class of its intention to voluntarily
dismiss the case and following the Court-ordered notice, on January
14, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Stipulation of Discontinuance
Without Prejudice withdrawing the case.
On January 15, 2020 the Court "So-Ordered" the Stipulation of
Discontinuance formally ending the case.
Surface Oncology, Inc. a clinical-stage immuno-oncology company
focused on using our specialized knowledge of the biological
pathways critical to the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment,
or the TME, for the development of next-generation cancer
therapies. The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
SYNACOR INC: Appeal in SDNY Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------
Synacor, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiff in the class
action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, filed a notice of appeal on the court's
decision in entering a judgment in favor of the Company and the
individual defendants and closed the case on November 19, 2019.
The Company and its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief
Financial Officer were named as defendants in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed on April 4, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The class includes persons who purchased the Company's shares
between May 4, 2016 and March 15, 2018. The plaintiff alleged that
the Company made materially false and misleading statements
regarding its contract with AT&T and the timing of revenue to be
derived therefrom, and that as a result, class members suffered
losses because Synacor shares traded at artificially inflated
prices.
The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
interest, attorneys' fees and legal expenses.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2018, a
second amended complaint on November 2, 2018, and the Company filed
a motion to dismiss on December 17, 2018. The plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 19, 2019 and the
Company filed its reply to plaintiff's opposition on February 15,
2019.
On August 28, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss but permitted the plaintiff to seek leave to replead. On
October 2, 2019, the plaintiff filed a letter application seeking
the court's leave to file a third amended complaint.
The Company filed a letter in opposition to the plaintiff's motion
on October 21, 2019. The court denied plaintiffs' application to
file an amended complaint and ordered the case closed on November
15, 2019.
The Clerk of the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company and
the individual defendants and closed the case on November 19, 2019.
Plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal on December 16, 2019.
The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend them
vigorously.
The Company cannot yet determine whether it is probable that a loss
will be incurred in connection with this complaint, nor can the
Company reasonably estimate the potential loss, if any.
Synacor, Inc. operates as a technology development, multiplatform
services, and revenue partner for video, Internet, and
communications providers; and device manufacturers, governments,
and enterprises in the United States and internationally. The
company was formerly known as CKMP, Inc. and changed its name to
Synacor, Inc. in July 2001. Synacor, Inc. was founded in 1998 and
is headquartered in Buffalo, New York.
TARGET CORPORATION: Barnes Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR BARNES, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, a
Minnesota corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
CIVDS2007761 (Filed March 13, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of California in and for the County of San Bernardino to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April
17, 2020.
The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime compensation; failure to provide itemized wage
statements; and failure to pay waiting-time penalties under the
California Labor Code.
Target Corporation is an American retail corporation.[BN]
Target Corporation is represented by:
Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
Ryan D. Derry, Esq.
Anna M. Skaggs, Esq.
Jeffrey G. Briggs, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
101 California Street, 48th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 856-7000
Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
ryanderry@paulhastings.com
annaskaggs@paulhastings.com
jeffreybriggs@paulhastings.com
TOWN SPORTS: Still Charges Members Amid Closure, Delvecchio Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL DELVECCHIO, LYNNE DELVECCHIO, DUNCAN K. JOHNSON, TONY J.
PROCTOR, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOWN SPORTS
INTERNATIONAL, LLC and TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.
d/b/a BOSTON SPORTS CLUB/S, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10666-MLV
(D. Mass., April 5, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against Defendants for their alleged unfair and deceptive acts and
practices in violations of Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Statute, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs are members of Town Sports Health Club who were charged
membership fees on April 1, 2020.
The complaint says that due to the COVID-19 outbreak, Defendants
closed all of its Boston Sports Club and terminated nearly all of
its Massachusetts-based employees, but continued charging their
consumers monthly membership fees for services that it knowingly
would not render. Defendants' inability to provide the services
bargained for under its membership agreements, but willfully and
knowingly charging consumers anyway.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees, costs, and treble damages.
Town Sports International, LLC and Town Sports International
Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Boston Sports Club/s operate gyms under the
brands New York Sports Clubs, Boston Sports Clubs, Washington
Sports Club, and Philadelphia Sports Club. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Leonard H. Kesten, Esq.
Michael Stefanilo, Jr. Esq.
Erica L. Brody, Esq.
BRODY HARDOON PERKINS & KESTEN, LLP
699 Boylston Street, 12th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617)880-7100
Emails: lkesten@bhpklaw.com
mstefanilo@bhpklaw.com
TRAVELEX CURRENCY: Fails to Secure and Safeguard PII, Picon Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Picon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRAVELEX CURRENCY SERVICES INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-03147-PKC (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's personal identifying information, and the Personal
Information of hundreds of thousands of other current and former
Travelex customers and employees.
Unfortunately for its customers and employees, in late 2019,
Travelex experienced a massive data breach in which hackers
accessed the Personal Information of its customers and employees.
The hack forced Travelex to take its internal networks,
consumer-facing websites, and app offline for several weeks,
according to the complaint. The hackers reportedly gained access to
Travelex's entire computer network with access to all of its most
sensitive information, including its customers and employees'
Personal Information, and even obtained access to customers and
employees' dates of birth, credit and debit card information,
social security numbers, phone numbers, address information, and
banking information.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was the inevitable
result of the Defendant's inadequate approach to data security and
their failure to protect Class Members' Personal Information that
they collected, maintained, and disseminated during the course of
their business. While Travelex reportedly discovered the Data
Breach on December 31, 2019, hackers had accessed and encrypted
Personal Information months prior--potentially even as far back as
the summer of 2019. That means for perhaps as long as six months,
hackers had unfettered accessed to Personal Information before
Defendant took any steps to alleviate the hack.
At first, the Defendant tried to hide the fact that hackers had
gained access to Personal Information, or that a hack had occurred,
says the complaint. The Defendant initially declared that its
global system outage was due to maintenance downtime via a message
on its website. A week later, the Defendant finally announced that
it had been the subject of a cyberattack. Unfortunately for the
Plaintiff and Class Members, the ramifications of the Defendant's
failure to keep the Plaintiff's and Class Members' data secure are
severe.
The Plaintiff used a Travelex kiosk in 2018 at an airport in
California to exchange currency for a trip to Mexico.
Travelex is one of the world's largest foreign currency exchange
companies, with currency exchange ATMs and branch locations at many
of the world's biggest airports and cities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
ykrivoshey@bursor.com
- and -
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
Miami, FL 33133-5402
Phone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: scott@bursor.com
TRIVAGO NV: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of IPO-Related Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
trivago N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the district court's order of
dismissal of the class action suit related to the company's Initial
Public Offering (IPO) has been affirmed by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit
A consolidated class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and
other defendants, alleging securities law violations in the
company's Initial Public Offering (IPO) registration statement and
certain later disclosures.
On February 26, 2019, the district court granted the motion to
dismiss as to all defendants, without granting plaintiffs leave to
further amend the complaint.
On December 16, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the dismissal of
the action.
trivago N.V., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a hotel
and accommodation search platform. It offers online meta-search for
hotels by facilitating consumers' search for hotel accommodation
through online travel agents, hotel chains, and independent hotels.
The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Dusseldorf,
Germany. trivago N.V. is a subsidiary of Expedia Group, Inc.
UNIVAR USA: Fails to Pay Overtime to CSRs, Edwards Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
FELICIA EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVAR USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00778-X (N.D. Tex., April 2, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant as a customer service
representative in or around May 2018 and currently remains employed
with Defendant.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours
per week throughout the relevant period and entered the hours she
worked per work week in Defendant's computerized time recording
system. However, Defendant did not compensated Plaintiff with an
overtime premium of one and half times her hourly rate for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.
Univar USA Inc. is a chemical distribution company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq.
David W. Henderson, Esq.
ELLWANGER LAW LLLP
400 South Zang Blvd., Suite 1015
Dallas, TX 75208
Tel: (737)808-2260
Emails: jellwanger@equalrights.law
dhenderson@equalrights.law
US PREMIUM: NBP Still Defends Antitrust & Labelling Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that that National Beef
Packing Company (NBP) continues to defend the so-called antitrust
and labelling class suits.
The Company is a defendant in two class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court, Minnesota District alleging that it
violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act,
the Commodity Exchange Act, and various state laws (the "Antitrust
Cases").
The Antitrust Cases are entitled In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation,
which was filed originally on April 23, 2019, and Peterson et al.
v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed
originally on April 26, 2019.
The plaintiffs in the Antitrust Cases seek treble damages and other
relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers & Stockyards
Act, the Commodities Exchange Act and attorneys' fees.
The Company is also a defendant in two class action lawsuits filed
on January 7, 2020, alleging that it misrepresented the origin of
its products in violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act
(the "Labelling Cases").
The Labelling Cases are entitled Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et
al., filed in the New Mexico Second Judicial District Court,
Bernalillo County, and Lucero v. Tyson Foods, et al., filed in the
New Mexico Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Sandoval County.
The Labelling Cases were subsequently removed to the United States
District Court, New Mexico District.
The plaintiffs in the Labelling Cases seek treble damages and other
relief and attorneys' fees.
NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in the
Antitrust Cases and the Labelling Cases and intends to defend these
cases vigorously.
U.S. Premium Beef said, "There can be no assurances, however, as to
the outcome of these matters or the impact on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash
flows."
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, together with its subsidiaries, operates an
integrated cattle processing and beef marketing enterprise in the
United States. The company, through its interests in National Beef
Packing Company, LLC, processes and markets fresh and chilled boxed
beef, ground beef, beef by products, and consumer ready beef and
pork, and wet blue leather for domestic and international markets.
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Kansas City, Missouri.
VBI VACCINES: Israel Class Action Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the District Court has accepted
SciVac Ltd.'s motion to suspend reaching a decision on the approval
of the class action pending the determination of liability under
the civil action.
On September 13, 2018, two actions were brought in the District
Court of the central district in Israel naming the company's
subsidiary SciVac Ltd. (SciVac) as a defendant.
In one claim, two minors, through their parents, allege among other
things, defects in certain batches of Sci-B-Vac discovered in July
2015; that Sci-B-Vac was approved for use in children and infants
in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its safety; that
SciVac failed to provide accurate information about Sci-B-Vac to
consumers and that each child suffered side effects from the
vaccine.
The claim was filed together with a motion seeking approval of a
class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated with
Sci-B-Vac in Israel from April, 2011 and seeking damages in a total
amount of NIS 1,879,500,000 (not in thousands) ($543,837).
The second claim is a civil action brought by two minors and their
parents against SciVac and the IMoH alleging, among other things,
that SciVac marketed an experimental, defective, hazardous or
harmful vaccine; that Sci-B-Vac was marketed in Israel without
sufficient evidence establishing its safety; and that Sci-B-Vac was
produced and marketed in Israel without approval of a western
regulatory body.
The claim seeks damages for past and future losses and expenses as
well as punitive damages.
SciVac believes these matters to be without merit and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.
The District Court accepted SciVac's motion to suspend reaching a
decision on the approval of the class action pending the
determination of liability under the civil action.
Preliminary hearings for the trial of the civil action began on
January 15, 2020.
VBI Vaccines Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and sells
vaccines to address unmet needs in infectious disease and
immuno-oncology in Israel and internationally. The company was
formerly known as SciVac Therapeutics Inc. and changed its name to
VBI Vaccines Inc. in May 2016. The company is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
VF OUTDOOR: Jones Sues in E.D. New York Alleging of Violation ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VF Outdoor, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. VF
Outdoor, LLC, V.F. Corporation, doing business as: vans.com, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01838 (E.D.N.Y., April 17, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
VF Corporation is an American worldwide apparel and footwear
company founded in 1899 and headquartered in Denver, Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
VIVINT SOLAR: Facing Customer Class Suits in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been
named a defendant in a putative class action suit initiated by the
company's customers who signed residential power purchase
agreements.
In December 2019, 10 customers who signed residential power
purchase agreements named the Company in a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging that the agreements contain unlawful
termination fee provisions.
The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and has
retained counsel to represent it in the litigation.
The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, at this
time.
Vivint said, "If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case,
it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company’s
results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome
becomes probable and estimable."
Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.
VIVINT SOLAR: Former Installers Drop Claims
-------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the two installers who
initiated a putative class action wage and hour lawsuit against the
Company have advised the trial court that they would dismiss their
class claims with prejudice and their individual claims without
prejudice and would pursue only their PAGA claim.
In December 2019, two former installers filed a putative class
action wage and hour lawsuit against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
In February 2020, the two installers filed a First Amended
Complaint, which added a Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")
claim.
In March 2020, Plaintiffs advised that they would dismiss their
class claims with prejudice and their individual claims without
prejudice and would pursue only their PAGA claim.
The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and has
retained counsel to represent it in the litigation. The Company is
unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time.
Vivint said, "If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case,
it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company’s
results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome
becomes probable and estimable."
Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.
VIVINT SOLAR: May 22 Final Settlement Hearing in San Diego Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the final hearing is
scheduled for May 22, 2020, to consider approval of the settlement
in the class action before the San Diego County Superior Court,
California.
In February 2018, two former employees, on behalf of themselves and
other direct sellers, named the Company in a putative class and
Private Attorneys General Act action in San Diego County Superior
Court, California, alleging that the Company misclassified those
employees and violated other wage and hour laws.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and statutory penalties for
the alleged violations.
The Company disputes the allegations and has retained counsel to
defend it in the litigation.
On October 7, 2019, the Company entered into a class action
settlement agreement, pursuant to which the Company has agreed to
pay up to $7.25 million to settle the claims in the lawsuit, which
was accrued by the Company in general and administrative expense in
the third quarter of 2019. The settlement is subject to court
approval.
On December 6, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.
The final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for May 22,
2020.
Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.
VIVINT SOLAR: Still Defends 2 Class Suits in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend two separate putative class actions in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.
In October 2019, two separate, purported stockholders filed
separate putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York purportedly on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated.
The lawsuits allege violations of federal securities laws and seek
unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company has not yet responded to either complaint and reserves
all of its rights and objections with regard to service of process,
jurisdictional challenges, and venue as well as any other
objections and motions related to the complaints.
The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and has
retained counsel to represent it in the litigation.
The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, at this
time.
Vivint said, "If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in either
case, it is possible that the impact could be material to the
Company's results of operations in the period(s) in which any such
outcome becomes probable and estimable."
Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.
WAL-MART STORES: Fails to Keep Premises Safe, Williams Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRAZIER WILLIAMS, SR. v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, a foreign
limited partnership, Case No. 105983478 (Fla. Cir., April 7, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants failed to warn the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals of the dangerous condition of its
premises at 1720 East Hillsborough Avenue, in Tampa, Hillsborough
County, Florida.
The Plaintiff alleges that on April 5, 2017, an incident occurred
at the Defendant's premises where he was injured when he sat on a
defective bench by the blood pressure machine, causing him to fall
forcefully to the floor. He adds that as the direct and proximate
result of the negligence of the Defendant, he suffered bodily
injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement,
mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense
of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and
aggravation of a previously existing condition.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant had a duty to maintain
the premises in a reasonably safe condition, correct any dangerous
condition of which it either knew or should have known by the use
of reasonable care, and to warn of any dangerous conditions
concerning which it had, or should have had, knowledge greater than
that of its invitees. The Defendant breached all of these duties.
The suit demands judgment for damages in excess of $30,000.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Shalhoub, Esq.
SCHWED, ADAMS & MCGINLEY, P.A.
7111 Fairway Drive, Suite 105
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
Telephone: (561) 694-6079
Facsimile: (561) 694-6089
E-mail: PShalhoub@schwedlawfirm.com
eservice@schwedlawfirm.com
WALGREEN COMPANY: Hernandez Sues in Illinois Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Hernandez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. WALGREEN COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02434 (N.D. Ill.,
April 20, 2020), alleges claims for negligence, invasion of
privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, and violation of the Florida Unfair Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in connection with a breach at the Defendant's data
systems.
The Plaintiff also seeks to compel the Defendant to adopt
reasonably sufficient security practices to safeguard patient's
personally identifiable information and protected health
information ("PII and PHI") that remains in its custody in order to
prevent incidents like the Data Breach from reoccurring in the
future.
On September 26, 2019, Walgreens discovered abnormal activity on a
number of Walgreens.com customer accounts wherein purportedly valid
login information was used to gain illegal access to such accounts.
With those credentials, unauthorized third parties gained access to
the PII and PHI of Walgreens customers. While Walgreens discovered
that its system had been compromised or about September 26, 2019,
and identified affected customers by October 5, 2019, it failed to
provide notice of the Data Breach until December 3, 2019, the
Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff argues that the Data Breach was a
direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect customer PII and PHI.
According to the complaint, The Defendant disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally,
willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and
reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected
against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did
not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices
to safeguard patient PII and PHI; failing to take standard and
reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing
to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice
of the Data Breach. As a result of Defendant's failure to implement
and follow basic security procedures, patient PII and PHI is now in
the hands of thieves.
Plaintiff Laura Hernandez is a resident of Oakland Park, Florida,
and a Walgreens customer.
Walgreens is the second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United
States specializing in prescription fulfillment, health and
wellness products, health information, and photo services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
111 W. Jackson Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 391-5059
Fax: (212) 545-4653
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Jean Martin, Esq.
Ryan McGee, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 223-5402
Email: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
rmcgee@forthepeople.com
WALMART INC: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Sousa Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE SOUSA, on behalf of himself and the Class members v. WALMART
INC. and WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00500-DAD-EPG
(E.D. Cal., April 7, 2020), alleges that the Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers have been denied payment for all hours
worked, including overtime pay.
The Plaintiff has been employed as a non-exempt employee by the
Defendants at the Wal-Mart store in Hanford, California, from 2014
to October 2017. The Plaintiff alleges that the workers have been
forced to wait in security-check lines while off-the-clock and have
been denied statutorily-required rest periods, in violation of the
California Law.
The case implicates the Defendants' longstanding policies and
practices, which fails to properly compensate non-exempt employees
for rest periods and for work performed while "off-the-clock."
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
David C. Leimbach, Esq.
Ryan M. Hecht, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
rhecht@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
William M. Hogg, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 338-2560
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: whogg@schneiderwallace.com
WALMART INC: Flores Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL FLORES, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CIV-DS-2007143 (Filed March 9, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on April 17, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00822 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for the Defendants' alleged violations
of the California Labor Code and for failure to pay lawful wages
including overtime wages and/or minimum wage.
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]
Walmart Inc. is represented by:
Robert J. Herrington, Esq.
Blakeley S. Oranburg, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1840 Century Park East, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 586-7700
Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com
oranburgb@gtlaw.com
WELD COUNTY, CO: Carranza Wants Inmates to Be Safe From COVID-19
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS CARRANZA; JESUS MARTINEZ; RICHARD BARNUM; THOMAS LEWIS;
MICHAEL WARD; COLBY PROPES; and CHAD HUNTER, on their own and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. STEVEN REAMS,
Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado, in his official capacity, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00977-PAB (D. Colo., April 7, 2020), is brought by Weld
County Jail Inmates seeking temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction to ensure that they are adequately protected
from the risk of contracting COVID-19 within the Weld County Jail.
The Plaintiffs contend that Sheriff Steven Reams is the person with
the constitutional responsibility to ensure that inmates at the
Weld County Jail are safe. But instead of proactively taking steps
to prevent a crisis in his facility, the Defendant has been a
COVID-19-denier from the outset of the crisis in direct
contravention of science, data, and common sense. They allege that
not only has the Sheriff refused to lead any efforts to ensure
physical distancing within the Weld County Jail, he also
discouraged local district attorneys and judges from making efforts
to decrease the Weld County jail population and assured them he has
things under control in his jail and was ready to manage COVID-19.
Not only are things not under control at the Weld County Jail, they
are spiraling out of control, the Plaintiffs allege. The number of
infected inmates and staff is rising precipitously. There are
reports that one recently released inmate, who contracted COVID-19
in the facility, has died. The situation is dire, the Plaintiffs
aver.
According to the complaint, 575 people, at least 44 of whom are
over the age of 55, are incarcerated in Weld County living in close
quarters where all aspects of daily life, including healthcare and
food service, take place in the same small space.
Steven Reams is the Sheriff of Weld County, Colorado. He succeeded
term-limited sheriff John Cooke in the 2014 statewide Colorado
general election and was reelected for a second term in 2018 while
running unopposed to remain the Weld County Sheriff.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andy McNulty, Esq.
Michael P. Fairhurst, Esq.
David A. Lane, Esq.
Darold W. Killmer, Esq.
KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP
1543 Champa St., Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 571-1000
Facsimile: (303) 571-1001
E-mail: amcnulty@kln-law.com
mfairhurst@kln-law.com
dlane@kln-law.com
dkillmer@kn-law.com
- and -
David G. Maxted, Esq.
MAXTED LAW LLC
1543 Champa Street Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 720-717-0877
Facsimile: 720-500-1251
E-mail: dave@maxtedlaw.com
- and -
Jamie Hughes Hubbard, Esq.
STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD, LLC
Telephone: 720 689 8909
E-mail: hubbard@sslhlaw.com
- and -
Mark Silverstein, Esq.
Rebecca T. Wallace, Esq.
Sara R. Neel, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO
303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (720) 402-3114
E-mail: msilverstein@aclu-co.org
rtwallace@aclu-co.org
sneel@aclu-co.org
- and -
Daniel D. Williams, Esq.
Lauren E. Groth, Esq.
HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC
921 Walnut Street, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80302
Telephone: (303) 442-6514
E-mail: Williams@hbcboulder.com
Groth@hbcboulder.com
WELLESLEY BANCORP: Parshall Agrees to Drop Case
-----------------------------------------------
Wellesley Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 6, 2020, that the
plaintiff in Parshall v. Fontaine et al., Case No. 24-C-20-001127,
has agreed to dismiss the suit.
On February 25, 2020, one purported stockholder of Wellesley
Bancorp, Inc. filed a putative derivative and class action lawsuit
against Wellesley, the members of the Wellesley board of directors,
Wellesley Bank, Cambridge Bancorp and Cambridge Trust Company in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, on behalf of
himself and similarly situated Wellesley stockholders, and
derivatively on behalf of Wellesley, captioned Parshall v. Fontaine
et al., Case No. 24-C-20-001127 (the "Merger Litigation").
The plaintiff generally alleges that the Wellesley board of
directors breached its fiduciary obligations by approving the terms
of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated December 5, 2019, by and
among Wellesley, Cambridge, Cambridge Trust Company and Wellesley
Bank, which provides for, among other things, the merger of
Wellesley with and into Cambridge.
The plaintiff further alleges inadequate merger consideration.
Lastly, the plaintiff alleges that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on February 4, 2020 and
first mailed to Wellesley stockholders on February 6, 2020
contained materially incomplete disclosures about the merger.
The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, rescission of the merger or
rescissory damages, other unspecified damages, and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.
On March 5, 2020, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, Wellesley and Cambridge have
agreed to make additional disclosures to supplement the disclosures
contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus (the "Additional
Disclosures").
The Additional Disclosures moot plaintiff's disclosure claims
asserted in the Merger Litigation and, as a result, the plaintiff
has agreed to dismiss the Merger Litigation with prejudice as to
his individual claims and without prejudice to the claims of the
putative members of the class.
This agreement to make the Additional Disclosures will not affect
the merger consideration to be paid in connection with the merger
of Wellesley with and into Cambridge or the timing of the special
meetings of Wellesley's or Cambridge's shareholders.
A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2UMF7fo.
Wellesley Bancorp, Inc. is a Maryland corporation incorporated in
2011. It serves as the parent holding company of Wellesley Bank
(the "Bank"), a Massachusetts chartered stock co-operative bank,
established in 1911, which completed its conversion from the mutual
to the stock form of ownership in January 2012. The company is
based in Wellesley, Massachusetts.
WILSON LIGHTING: Hanlin FLSA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY HANLIN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. WILSON LIGHTING OF ST.
LOUIS, INC., ROBERT WILSON CO., INC., and WILSON LIGHTING OF
NAPLES, INC., all d/b/a Wilson Lighting, Case No. 20SL-CC01063, was
removed from the Missouri Circuit Court for St. Louis County to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on April
17, 2020.
The Eastern District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00554 to the proceeding.
The putative collective action is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for overtime wages allegedly owed to warehouse
managers and laborers employed by the Defendants. Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that overtime wages are owed to him for work
performed between 2015 and 2019, while he was employed as a
warehouse manager by Wilson Lighting of St. Louis, Inc. in St.
Louis County, Missouri.
Wilson Lighting is a family-owned company doing business in
lighting and home decor industry.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam A. Field, Esq.
Kevin P. Clark, Esq.
LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP
222 S. Central Ave., Ste. 110
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-1227
Facsimile: (314) 725-3006
E-mail: Clark@LitchfieldCavo.com
Field@LitchfieldCavo.com
- and -
Alan L. Rupe, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS LLP
1605 N. Waterfront Pkwy., Suite 150
Wichita, KS 67206
Telephone: (316) 609-7900
Facsimile: (316) 462-5746
E-mail: alan.rupe@lewisbrisbois.com
WORLD HEALTH: Kling Sues Over Careless Handling of Covid-19 Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard O. Kling, M.D., Steve Rotker and Gennaro Purchia,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, Case No. 7:20-cv-03124 (S.D.N.Y., April
20, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for the substantial
damages suffered by the Plaintiffs and Class Members, proximately
resulting from WHO's gross negligence in failing to timely declare
Coronavirus a public health emergency of international concern.
The Plaintiffs also accuse the WHO of failing to properly monitor
the response to the Coronavirus pandemic in China generally and
within Hubei Province and the City of Wuhan; to timely promulgate
the correct treatment guidelines to its members; to issue
appropriate guidance to its members on how they should respond to
the Coronavirus pandemic emergency, including travel and trade
restrictions; and to act as a global coordinator, shepherding
scientific data and experts to where they were most needed.
The WHO mishandled and mismanaged the response to the discovery of
the coronavirus and engaged in a cover-up of the COVID-19 pandemic
in China generally, and within Hubei Province and the City of
Wuhan, thereby, causing and/or contributing to the subsequent
spread of the coronavirus all over the world, including to the
United States of America and the State of New York, the Plaintiffs
allege.
According to the complaint, the negligent commissions and omissions
of WHO have caused injury and incalculable harm to the Plaintiffs
and Class Members. Such injuries and harm are continuing in nature
and will multiply exponentially for the indefinite future, causing
additional personal injuries and deaths, as well as progressive
economic damages.
The Plaintiffs are residents of New York, who has been injured and
damaged by WHO's negligent conduct and actions.
The WHO is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible
for international public health.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
BLAU, LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
23 Green Street, Suite 303
Huntington, NY 11743
Phone: (631) 458-1010
Email: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com
ZYNERBA PHARMA: Class Suit Over Zygel Trial Reports Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zynerba Pharmaceuticals said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit related to Zygel.
On October 23, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
This action was purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class
of Zynerba investors who purchased the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 11, 2019 and September 17, 2019. The
Complaint alleges that Defendants made certain material
misstatements and omissions relating to product candidate Zygel
("ZYN002") in alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, plaintiff claims that Defendants made false
statements or failed to disclose that: (i) Zygel was proving unsafe
and not well-tolerated in the BELIEVE 1 clinical trial; (ii) that
the foregoing created a foreseeable, heightened risk that Zynerba
would fail to secure the necessary regulatory approvals for
commercializing Zygel for the treatment of developmental and
epileptic encephalopathies in children and adolescents, and (iii)
as a result the Company's public statements and public filings were
materially false and misleading to investors.
Zynerba said, "We believe that the claims asserted are without
merit, and we intend to defend this action vigorously. The lawsuit
is in the early stages and, at this time, no assessment can be made
as to its likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to
us. Legal fees are expensed as incurred."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Zynerba Pharmaceuticals provides pharmaceutically-produced
transdermal cannabinoid therapies for rare and near-rare
neuropsychiatric disorders. The company is committed to improving
the lives of patients and their families living with severe,
chronic health conditions including Fragile X syndrome, or FXS,
autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, or
22q, and a heterogeneous group of rare and ultra-rare epilepsies
known as developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, or DEE. The
company is based in Devon, Pennsylvania.
*********
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 ***