/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/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 ***