/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200511.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, May 11, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 94
Headlines
ADELPHI UNIVERSITY: Shak Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Refuses to Refund Unused Passes, Farmer Claims
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Flannery Antitrust Suit Over E-Cigs Trade
AS ROMA: Faces Feldman Shareholder Suit in Delaware Chancery Ct.
ASCEND LABORATORIES: Metformin Has High NDMA Level, Mantalis Says
AXOGEN INC: Motion to Dismiss Einhorn Class Suit Still Pending
BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Shareholders' Bid to Revive Suit Still Pending
BILL GRAHAM: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Kihn Suit
BOWMAN CONSULTING: Turnbull Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
BRISTOL-MYERS: No Trial Date for Remaining Claims in Suit v Celgene
BRISTOL-MYERS: Seeks to Dismiss Amended CheckMate-026 Class Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Litigation Underway
BURGER KING: 4 Suits over Sherman Act Violations Consolidated
C PEPPER LOGISTICS: Sued by Flinn for Misclassifying Drivers
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Faces Milkboy Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Seeks to Drop Melucci Securities Class Suit
DELTA DENTAL: Swiecinski Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
DISH AMERICA: Faces Smith Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DISPOSALL INC: Thomas Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Friedman Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
EDOARDO MELONI: Dr. Newman Seeks to Certify Class
EVENFLO COMPANY: Faces Brinkerhoff Class Suit in S.D. Ohio
FEDEX FREIGHT: Settlement in Emetoh Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
FITNESS INT'L: Winters Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
FLOWERS FOODS: Appeals M.D. Fla. Decision in Martins FLSA Suit
FM JANITORIAL: Vondergathen Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA
FOCUSINC INT'L: Stein Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
FORBES SECURITY: Faces Harrington Suit in California Super. Ct.
FORESTERS LIFE: Violates California Insurance Code, Siino Alleges
GC SERVICES: Jackson Appeals Memorandum and Order to 2nd Circuit
GEMSTONE SUPERMARKETS: Santiagos Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Hachem Class Suit Still Pending
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Houston Class Suit Remains Stayed
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Defends Mahar Securities Action in New York
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Faces Bezio Suit in New York State Court
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: GCDC Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Coverage
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Refuses to Pay COVID-19 Losses, Pigment Says
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: SA Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
HILCO REDEVELOPMENT: Faces Solis Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Ill.
ISS FACILITY: Zamano Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under Labor Code
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Cambridge Retirement System Class Suit Underway
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Still Faces Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Suit
JP MORGAN: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed in "Muha"
KAUFF'S INC: Conchado Seeks to Certify Tow Truck Drivers Class
KBR INC: Hearing on Appeal in Suit vs. Former Subsidiary Underway
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Zwillo V Sues Over Refusal to Pay Claims
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Laborers' Fund Appeals Order to 3rd Cir.
MACRO COMPANIES: Guillory Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Buford Labor Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
METLIFE INC: 9th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in Martin Suit vs. MLIC
METLIFE INC: Owens Suit v. Metropolitan Life in N.D. Ga. Settled
METLIFE INC: Still Faces Parchmann Class Action in New York
METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Lawsuit Underway
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in DeCapua TCPA Suit
MGT CAPITAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for May 27
MICRO FOCUS: Bid to Drop Securities Suit in New York Still Pending
MICRO FOCUS: Forsyth Class Action in California Remains Stayed
MICRO FOCUS: Jackson Class Action in N.D. Georgia Still Stayed
MICRO FOCUS: Prelim. Approval Hearing for Araiza Pact Held
MICRO FOCUS: Securities Class Action in California Still Stayed
MICROSOFT CORP: McFadden Sues Over Defective Xbox One Controllers
MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Prero Sues in New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
NESTLE WATERS: Fails to Provide Adequate COBRA Notice, York Says
NEW YORK: Thomas Prisoner Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. New York
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Abrahams Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Stern Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
OASIS LEGAL: Davis Appeals S.D. Georgia Decision to 11th Circuit
ONE TOUCH: Stevens Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Filing of 3rd Amended SEPTA Securities Suit OKd
PARSLEY ENERGY: Jagged Peak Energy Merger--Related Suits Dismissed
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Brown Suit Asks Home Confinement for Detainees
PICK & PACK: Saavedra Sues to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit Trial in April 2022
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Pending in Oklahoma
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Awaiting 2nd Amended Complaint in "Hogan"
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Faces Consolidated Plant Workers Class Suit
PREMIERE CREDIT: Faces Staniland FDCPA Class Suit in New Jersey
RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Still Defends 2 Antitrust Class Action Complaints
RELIASTAR LIFE: Advance Trust's COI Litigation Underway
RITE AID: Monmouth County Files Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
RP ON-SITE LLC: Brown Sues in E.D. Virginia Over FCRA Violation
RSCR CALIFORNIA: Pending Class Certification Bid Declared Moot
RUSH STREET: Faces Stewart Wage and Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois
SABER HEALTHCARE: Bartels Suit Seeks to Certify Class
SECURITY LIFE: Still Faces Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Colo.
SEI INVESTMENTS: Awaits Court's Okay over Stevens Suit Settlement
SEI INVESTMENTS: Still Defends Stanford Trust-Related Suits
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Agar Suit vs. SNI Moves into Discovery
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Appeal in Lewis Suit Still Pending
SIMON BROTHERS: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action
STEWARD MELBOURNE: Hauser Appeals M.D. Florida Order to 11th Cir.
TDL GROUP: Suit over Canadian Competition Act Breaches Underway
TEVA PHARMA: Appeal in Aggrenox(R) Antitrust Suit Pending
TEVA PHARMA: Class Suit Over Lamictal Patent Remains Stayed
TEVA PHARMA: Niaspan Indirect Buyers' Bid for Class Status Pending
TEVA PHARMA: Settlement in Provigil(R) Suit Awaits Court OK
TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Pennsylvania MDL over Antitrust Matters
TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Venlafaxine-Related Class Suits
TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Actions over Lidoderm Settlement
TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Claims over Cinacalcet
TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Class Suits over Intuniv Deal
TRANSUNION RENTAL: Hector Suit Moved From Virginia to Georgia
TRISTATE LOGISTICS: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Bryant FLSA Suit
UMPQUA BANK: Wrongfully Charges OD and NSF Fees, Hayes Alleges
UNILEVER US: Nunez Sues Over Misleading Sale of Breyers Ice Cream
UNITED PARCEL: Court Strikes Bid for Class Certification
UNITED STATES: Grinis Asks for Safety of Prisoners at FMC Devens
UNITED STATES: Samma Sues in D.D.C. Seeking Review of DoD Actions
UNITED STATES: Sec. Wolf Appeals Decision in Doe Migrant Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Carrone Labor Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Ritter Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
VALARIS PLC: Still Faces Zhang Suit over Securities Law Breaches
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit in California
VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Defends Goetz Class Action in Delaware
VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Defends Zhou Class Suit in Colorado
WARNER MUSIC: Williams Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir.
WEST SHORE BANK: Singleton Sues Over Charging of Overdraft Fees
WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Equity Pursues Rights Under Business Policy
WILHELMINA INT'L: Continues to Defend Shanklin and Pressley Suits
ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah Class Certification Motion Remains Pending
ZOOM VIDEO: Simins Sues Over Failure to Deliver Promised Privacy
*********
ADELPHI UNIVERSITY: Shak Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Shak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. ADELPHI UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01951 (E.D.N.Y., April 28,
2020), seeks to recover refund for tuition and fees paid for the
Spring 2020 academic semester at the Adelphi University.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition
and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at the Adelphi
University, and who, because of the Defendant's response to the
Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the
benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the
educational and related services and facilities for which they
paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to them.
On March 10, 2020, Adelphi provided a written update to its student
body notifying them that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic,
all on-campus classes would be canceled beginning on March 11,
2020. The update further stated that Adelphi would offer all
classes in an online format beginning on March 23, 2020.
Since March 11, 2020, Adelphi has not held any in-person classes.
Classes that have continued have been offered solely in an online
format, with no in-person instruction. Moreover, on March 16, 2020,
Adelphi provided an urgent written notice to resident students and
their families that effective immediately, all resident students
were directed to move out and return home as soon as possible.
As a result, Adelphi has not delivered the educational services,
facilities, access and/or opportunities that the Plaintiff and the
putative class contracted and paid for, according to the complaint.
The online learning options being offered to Adelphi students are
subpar in practically every aspect compared to in-person learning,
including due to lack of facilities, equipment, materials, and
access to faculty. Students have been deprived of the opportunity
for collaborative learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and
critique, including but not limited to loss of clinical rotation
learning opportunities.
The Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to a refund of tuition and
fees for in-person educational services, facilities, access and/or
opportunities that Adelphi has not provided, says the complaint.
Even if Adelphi had to cancel in-person classes, the Plaintiff's
and the putative class members' payments for in-person services
have been improperly retained.
The Plaintiff is a full-time, undergraduate Adelphi student, and
paid his tuition for the Spring 2020 semester.
The Defendant is a private university in Garden City, New York,
where its main campus is located.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
- and -
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
Miami, FL 33133-5402
Phone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: sweetcot@bursor.com
ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Refuses to Refund Unused Passes, Farmer Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE T. FARMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ALTERRA MOUNTAIN COMPANY U.S. INC. and IKON PASS INC.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01175-STV (D. Colo., April 27, 2020), arises from
Alterra's refusal to refund the unusable portion of the Season
Passes or Ikon Passes for the 2019-20 ski season after Alterra
closed its ski resorts early due to the COVID-19 pandemic
According to the complaint, Alterra closed the ski resorts it owns
on March 14, 2020, with nearly two months left in the ski season.
Similarly, the other resorts included with the Ikon Passes closed
around the same time. The Plaintiff contends that he and class
members were unable to use the remaining value in their passes.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' conduct breaches their
contract with passholders, is unfair, unlawful, and unconscionable,
and unjustly enriches the Defendants at the expense of their
customers. The Plaintiff brings this action in order to secure
partial refunds for each and every similarly situated customer that
the Defendants have wronged by refusing to issue partial refunds
for Season Passes and Ikon Passes with unused days, when Alterra
closed its resorts starting on March 15, 2020.
Alterra provides skiing facilities. The Company owns and operates
mountain resorts and offers heli-skiing adventure tours, as well as
provides helicopter access to skiable terrain. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (888) 711-9975
E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
- and -
Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
John D. Scheflow, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-782-4880
Facsimile: 312-782-4485
E-mail: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com
nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
jscheflow@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
205 N. Monroe St.
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: 215-864-2800
E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Flannery Antitrust Suit Over E-Cigs Trade
-------------------------------------------------------------
MALLORY FLANNERY v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., AND JUUL LABS, INC., Case
No. 3:20-cv-02891 (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2020), is brought under the
Sherman Act on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated seeking damages and injunctive relief for the Defendants'
alleged concerted restraint trade of electronic cigarette.
The Defendants in this antitrust class action illegally agreed that
Altria Group would invest $12.8 billion in Juul Labs and stop
competing with Juul in the market for closed-system electronic
cigarette, according to the complaint. Altria's sudden and
collusive departure from the market, along with its marketing and
distribution support for Juul, allocated the market for
e-cigarettes to Juul, unlawfully increasing its market power.
The Plaintiff alleges that after months of fitful negotiations,
Altria agreed to Juul's demand. Juul and Altria reached an
anticompetitive agreement in which Altria bought a 35% interest in
Juul for a generous $12.8 billion. In return, Altria walked away
from its own e-cigarette business and stopped competing with Juul.
Altria was an established incumbent firm in the nicotine and
tobacco field. Altria's Marlboro product was the biggest selling
cigarette for over 45 years. During the last decade, declining
traditional tobacco sales encouraged Altria's interest in new
vapor-based nicotine products. In 2013, Altria began e-cigarette
work, bringing its MarkTen e-cigarette to market. By mid-2017, the
MarkTen gained the second highest share of this market.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff says, Juul entered the e-cigarette market
with a splash, launching its new, closed-system Juul product in
2015. Juul's growing sales captured first-place e-cigarette market
share by January 2018, challenging Altria's market share.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
Anupama K. Reddy, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
kquackenbush@saverilawfirm.com
areddy@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
Craig S. Davis, Esq
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (651) 339-0981
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
hmsilton@locklaw.com
csdavis@locklaw.com
- and -
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Telephone: (515) 223-4567
Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
AS ROMA: Faces Feldman Shareholder Suit in Delaware Chancery Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against AS Roma
SPV GP, et al. The case is captioned as Daniel Feldman, John
Charles Pope Revocable Trust, Jonathan Wyatt Gruber, and Tierney
Family Investors, LLC, on Behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. AS Roma SPV GP, LLC; James J. Pallotta;
Raptor Holdco, LLC; Richard A. D'Amore; Shamrock Holdings of
California, Inc.; The Ruane Irrevocable GST Trust of 2007, Case No.
2020-0314 (Del. Ch., April 27, 2020).
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties.
The Defendants are doing business in investment industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter B Ladig, Esq.
Brett McCartney, Esq.
Sarah Andrade, Esq.
BAYARD PA
PO Box 25130
600 North King St., Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 429-4220
E-mail: sandrade@bayardlaw.com
ASCEND LABORATORIES: Metformin Has High NDMA Level, Mantalis Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STELIOS MANTALIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ASCEND LABORATORIES, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-04329-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., April 15, 2020), arises from
Ascend's manufacturing, distribution, and sale of the generic
medication metformin that contains dangerously high levels of
N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic and liver-damaging
impurity.
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. The Plaintiff
contends that Ascend's manufacturing process has caused metformin
to contain dangerously high levels of NDMA.
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." While NDMA is not
currently produced in the United States other than for research
purposes, it was formerly used "in production of liquid rocket
fuel," among other uses.
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 Ascend.
According to the complaint, Ascend had not yet issued a recall of
metformin and continues to tout on its Web site that it is
"committed to quality and safety." However, these representations
are false, as the Defendant's metformin medication contains alleged
carcinogenic impurity NDMA.
Ascend operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company offers
capsules, cream, tablets, nasal spray, ointment, and powder.[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
AXOGEN INC: Motion to Dismiss Einhorn Class Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants are awaiting the court's decision on their motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., et
al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla.), according to AxoGen, Inc.'s
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws
against Axogen, Inc., certain of its directors and officers
("Individual Defendants"), and Axogen's 2017 Offering Underwriters
and 2018 Offering Underwriters (collectively, with the Individual
Defendants, the "Defendants"), captioned Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc.,
et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fl.).
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false or misleading
statements in connection with the Company's November 2017
registration statement issued regarding its secondary public
offering in November 2017 and May 2018 registration statement
issued regarding its secondary public offering in May 2018, and
during a class period of August 7, 2017 to December 18, 2018.
In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2)
that the Company's pricing alienated customers and threatened the
Company's future growth; (3) that ambulatory surgery centers form a
significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) that
such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) that
the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the
Company paid to generate sales; (6) that the Company's consignment
model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel
stuffing; (7) that the Company offered purchase incentives to sales
representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) that the
Company's sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue
to artificially inflate metrics; (9) that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and
backdating of revenue; (10) that the Company's key operating
metrics, such as number of active accounts, were overstated; and
(11) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Axogen was served on January 15, 2019.
On February 4, 2019, the court granted the parties' stipulated
motion which provided that Axogen is not required to file a
response to the complaint until thirty days after Plaintiff files a
consolidated amended complaint.
On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint, and on July 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.
Plaintiff filed opposing papers on August 12, 2019. The Court held
a status hearing on September 11, 2019 and stayed all deadlines
regarding the parties' obligations to file a case management
report.
On December 4, 2019 the parties presented oral arguments and are
currently awaiting the court's ruling.
AxoGen, Inc. provides surgical solutions for physical damage or
transection to peripheral nerves. The company provides its products
to hospitals, surgery centers, and military hospitals in the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other European countries,
and internationally. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in Alachua,
Florida.
BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Shareholders' Bid to Revive Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biglari Holdings 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 Indiana Supreme Court has yet to review
a lower court's decision dismissing a shareholder litigation.
On January 29, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana. The shareholder generally alleges claims of
breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of
Directors and unjust enrichment to Sardar Biglari as a result of
the dual class structure.
On March 26, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana. This shareholder generally alleges claims of
breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of
Directors. This shareholder sought to enjoin the shareholder vote
on April 26, 2018 to approve the dual class structure.
On April 16, 2018, the shareholder withdrew a motion to enjoin the
shareholder vote on April 26, 2018.
On May 17, 2018, the shareholders who filed the January 29, 2018
complaint and the March 26, 2018 complaint filed a new,
consolidated complaint against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana. The shareholders generally allege claims of
breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of
Directors and unjust enrichment to Mr. Biglari arising out of the
dual class structure. The shareholders seek, for themselves and on
behalf of all other shareholders as a class, a declaration that the
defendants breached their duty to the shareholders and the class,
and to recover unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and an award of their attorneys' fees and other costs.
On December 14, 2018, the judge of the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana issued an order granting the Company's motion to
dismiss the shareholders' lawsuits.
On January 11, 2019, the shareholders filed an appeal of the
judge's order dismissing the lawsuits.
On December 4, 2019, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a
unanimous decision affirming the trial court's decision to dismiss
the shareholder litigation.
On January 20, 2020, the shareholders filed a petition to transfer
with the Indiana Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of
the Court of Appeals. The Company opposed the petition. The
Indiana Supreme Court has not ruled upon the petition to transfer.
Biglari Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, primarily operates
and franchises restaurants in the United States. The company owns,
operates, and franchises restaurants under the Steak n Shake and
Western Sizzlin names. The company was formerly known as The Steak
n Shake Company and changed its name to Biglari Holdings Inc. in
April 2010. Biglari Holdings Inc. was founded in 1934 and is based
in San Antonio, Texas.
BILL GRAHAM: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Kihn Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GREG KIHN, ET AL. v. BILL
GRAHAM ARCHIVES, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 17-cv-05343-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order:
1. granting the motion for class certification under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and
(b)(3) with respect to these classes:
Composer Class defined as:
"all owners of the musical compositions encompassed in
sound recordings and audiovisual works of non-studio
performances reproduced, performed, distributed, or
otherwise exploited by Defendants during the period from
September 14, 2014, to the present"; and
Performer Class defined as:
"all persons whose non-studio live musical performances
are captured in the recordings of sounds or sounds and
images which have been reproduced, performed, distributed,
or otherwise exploited by Defendants during the period
from September 14, 2014, to the present";
2. directing the Defendants to provide class lists
identifying the members of the Composer and Performer
Classes to the Plaintiffs no later than May 15, 2020; and
3. directing the Parties to meet and confer on these issues
and submit a single joint brief on the issues of
subclassing and notice, preferably with side-by-side
comparisons of their proposals on issues as to which they
cannot reach agreement. The joint brief shall be no more
than 15 pages and shall be filed by June 12, 2020.
Judge Rogers said, "the Court finds the concerns expressed in Dukes
inapplicable. The damages the Composer and Performer Classes seek
would not result in individualized injunctive relief. Barrett v.
Wesley Fin. Grp., LLC, No. 13CV554-LAB (KSC), 2015 WL 12910740, at
7 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2015). Due process concerns are diminished
where a Rule 23(b)(3) class is also certified. Thus, the Court
finds certification of the classes under Rule 23(b)(2) to be
appropriate as well."
Judge Rogers adds that the Court will entertain any arguments for
sub-classing, whether by the Exploitation Agreement covering the
recording(s) or performer(s), or by other criteria. Likewise, the
Court will consider the parties' proposals for the best notice
practicable to the members of the classes."
The case arises from the Defendants' exploitation of audio and
video recordings of live musical performances, and the musical
compositions performed therein, from the 1950s to the 1990s. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants distributed and sold in
thousands of recordings acquired from a dozen private collections
-- recordings that captured live performances spanning several
decades, made by concert producers and sound engineers without the
performers' authorization.[CC]
BOWMAN CONSULTING: Turnbull Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Turnbull and Norma Dean-Clarkson, on their own behalf and
others similarly situated v. BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP, LTD., INC., a
Virginia corporation, and AEROTEK, INC., a Maryland corporation,
Case No. 0:20-cv-60864-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 28, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation and
all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Defendants violated the FLSA by requiring the Plaintiffs to
perform work "off the clock" and failing to pay them the full
extent of their overtime compensation, according to the complaint.
The Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to unpaid overtime
compensation from the Defendants for all hours worked by them in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and are also entitled to
liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Customer Outreach
Specialists ("COS").
BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP, LTD., INC. is a Virginia corporation, with
a principal place of business in Reston, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Camar Jones, Esq.
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Logan Pardell, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
Email: cjones@shavitzlaw.com
gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
BRISTOL-MYERS: No Trial Date for Remaining Claims in Suit v Celgene
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019, that no trial date has been set for the
claims that survived the Court's order in the securities class
action against its wholly-owned subsidiary, Celgene.
Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed
against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Celgene Securities Class
Action"). The complaints allege that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions
concerning (1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and
projected sales of Otezla, and (3) the new drug application for
Ozanimod.
The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative
class.
In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint in full.
In December 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part
and granted the motion to dismiss in part (including all claims
arising from alleged misstatements regarding GED-0301). Although
the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the dismissed
claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims are now
dismissed with prejudice.
No trial date has been set for the claims that survived the Court's
order.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
BRISTOL-MYERS: Seeks to Dismiss Amended CheckMate-026 Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company has sought the Court's order
dismissing the amended complaint in the class action suit related
to CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer, 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.
Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against BMS, BMS's Chief Executive Officer, Giovanni
Caforio, BMS's Chief Financial Officer at the time, Charles A.
Bancroft and certain former and current executives of BMS.
The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed.
The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for
BMS's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in
lung cancer.
In September 2019, the Court granted BMS's motion to dismiss, but
allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.
In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
BMS has moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
BRISTOL-MYERS: Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Litigation Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019, that no trial date has been set in the
consolidated antitrust class action against its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Celgene, related to Thalomid and Revlimid. The parties
in the lawsuit previously reached a settlement under which all the
putative class plaintiff claims would be dismissed with prejudice.
However, Celgene exercised its right to terminate the settlement
agreement in December 2019, after certain third-party payors who
were members of the settlement class refused to release their
potential claims and participate in the settlement.
Beginning in November 2014, certain putative class action lawsuits
were filed against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging that Celgene violated various
antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a)
allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract for the alleged
purpose of preventing a generic manufacturer from securing its own
supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b)
allegedly refusing to sell samples of Thalomid and Revlimid brand
drugs to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of
bioequivalence testing necessary for aNDAs to be submitted to the
FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products, (c)
allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in
order to allegedly delay approval for proposed generic versions of
Thalomid and Revlimid, and/or (d) allegedly entering into
settlements of patent infringement lawsuits with certain generic
manufacturers that allegedly have had anticompetitive effects. The
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and putative classes of
third-party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and damages. The
various lawsuits were consolidated into a master action for all
purposes.
In October 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of
two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the
District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class. Celgene
filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion and a motion for
judgment on the pleadings dismissing all state law claims where the
plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a class.
In October 2018, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and Celgene's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
In December 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification, which Celgene opposed.
In July 2019, the parties reached a settlement under which all the
putative class plaintiff claims would be dismissed with prejudice.
In December 2019, after certain third-party payors who were members
of the settlement class refused to release their potential claims
and participate in the settlement, Celgene exercised its right to
terminate the settlement agreement. No trial date has been set.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.
BURGER KING: 4 Suits over Sherman Act Violations Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Four class action complaints against Burger King Worldwide, Inc.
and Burger King Corporation related to alleged violations of
Sherman Act have been consolidated, according to Restaurant Brands
International Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against
Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("BKW") and Burger King Corporation
("BKC") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.
On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed
against the Company, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.
On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed
against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed
against the Company, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Sandra Muster, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.
These complaints allege that the defendants violated Section 1 of
the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and
no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all
Burger King franchisees are required to sign. Each plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief and damages for himself or herself and other
members of the class. These actions have been consolidated.
Restaurant Brands International Inc. is the sole general partner of
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership
("Partnership"), which is the indirect parent of The TDL Group
Corp. ("Tim Hortons"), Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("Burger King")
and Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. ("Popeyes"). The Company is
based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
C PEPPER LOGISTICS: Sued by Flinn for Misclassifying Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FLINN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. C PEPPER LOGISTICS LLC, and LANTER DELIVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02215-JAR-KGG (D. Kan., April 27, 2020), arises from
Defendants' misclassification of their drivers as independent
contractors.
The Plaintiff contends that he and other drivers hired by C Pepper
in Kansas and throughout the United States clearly were and are
employees under the law, but C Pepper willfully misclassifies them
as independent contractors. He adds that by misclassifying them as
independent contractors, C Pepper unlawfully shifts the burden of
paying the employer's share of payroll taxes from itself to its
drivers, and violates numerous other legal obligations it owes to
its drivers based on their status as employees.
On April 4, 2019, Mr. Flinn began working as a truck driver for C
Pepper in Kansas.
C Pepper is a DOT-registered motor carrier that provides trucking
and transfer services. Lanter provides overnight unattended
delivery service of time-sensitive parts for major auto,
agriculture, and heavy-duty truck original equipment manufacturers
and industrial supply and equipment distributors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Boyd A. Byers, Esq.
Jeremy E. Koehler, Esq.
FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
Wichita, KS 67206-4466
Telephone: (316) 291-9796
Facsimile: (866) 559-6541
E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com
jkoehler@foulston.com
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Faces Milkboy Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE CINCINNATI
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. The case is styled as MILKBOY CENTER CITY
LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY,
THE CINCINNATI INDEMNITY COMPANY, CINCINNATI FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02036 (E.D. Pa., April 27, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as insurance contract.
The Cincinnati Insurance Company provides insurance products and
underwriting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
3300 Two Commerce Sq.
2001 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 963-0600
Email: jgolan@barrack.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as IRMA GOMEZ, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONVERGENT
OUTSOURCING INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00592 (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
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Seeks to Drop Melucci Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated has moved to dismiss the
securities class action complaint initiated by Nicholas Melucci in
California, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company said, "On March 14, 2019, a purported securities class
action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California by Nicholas Melucci (Melucci v.
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case No.
5:19-cv-01372-LHK). The complaint named us and certain of our
executive officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and alleges that the defendants made false and
materially misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse
facts about our business, operations, and prospects. The complaint
asserts a putative class period stemming from August 2, 2017 to
February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest
and attorneys' fees. On October 7, 2019, the Court appointed a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff's consolidated
complaint was filed on December 6, 2019. We moved to dismiss the
class action complaint on January 27, 2020, but cannot predict the
outcome of this matter."
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated discovers, develops, and
commercializes drugs for the treatment of severe metabolic,
oncologic, and psychiatric disorders in the United States. Corcept
Therapeutics Incorporated was founded in 1998 and is headquartered
in Menlo Park, California.
DELTA DENTAL: Swiecinski Antitrust Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as David J. Swiecinski, DDS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DELTA DENTAL
PLANS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 1:20-cv-03913 (Filed March 10,
2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago) on April 27, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02539 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.
The lawsuit arises from Delta Dental's alleged violations of
federal antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across
the United States.
The Defendants are Delta Dental Plans Association; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Insurance Company; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.;
Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Delaware, Inc.; Delta
Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta
Dental Plan of Idaho, Inc.; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental
Plan of Indiana, Inc.; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service
Corp.; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of
Michigan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Delta Dental of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental
Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta Dental of New York, Inc.; Delta
Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta
Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc.; Delta Dental
of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental Plan of
Wyoming.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States. They contract with
dentists and dental practices--like the named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance (collectively, the "Delta Dental
Providers") to reimburse the providers for dental services provided
to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental insurance contracts.
The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta
Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an
administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans
offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their patients via the
Delta Dental State Insurers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have built upon the
monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy
to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental
insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants'
Price Fixing Conspiracy takes the form of the Defendants agreeing
among themselves upon the rates at which they will reimburse the
Delta Dental Providers for the services the providers offer to
Delta Dental insureds.
David J. Swiecinski, DDS, is a dental services provider located in
Pitman, New Jersey.
Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Simon B. Paris, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI,
& BENDESKY, P.C.
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-8282
Facsimile: (215) 754-4443
E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
ckocher@smbb.com
DISH AMERICA: Faces Smith Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Smith, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. DISH AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No.
4:20-cv-01497 (S.D. Tex., April 28, 2020), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime
compensation.
According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff
work more than forty hours in a workweek without overtime
compensation. The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff as
independent contractors instead of as employees. By misclassifying
them as independent contractors, the Defendant illegally denied the
Plaintiff compensation at time and one half their regular rates of
pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendant as an installer from
May 2012 to February 2020.
The Defendant is a company that installs Dish Network cable and
internet equipment in residences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
Email: Dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
DISPOSALL INC: Thomas Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Thomas, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. DISPOSALL, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-00718-PGB-GJK (M.D.
Fla., April 27, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff routinely works (and worked) in excess of 40 hours
per workweek but was not paid overtime for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Thomas was employed by the Defendant as a Waste Disposal
Driver from March 2018 until August 2018.
DisposAll provides portable toilets, biomedical waste removal
services, roll-off containers (dumpsters) in multiple capacities,
as well as compactors and balers for virtually any waste, refuse,
and recycling requirements throughout the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Phone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 North Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: cliff@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Friedman Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH FRIEDMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05147 (D.N.J.,
April 27, 2020), seeks refund of tuition and fees.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition
and fees for the Winter and/or Spring 2020 academic Terms at Drexel
University, and who, because of Drexel' response to the COVID-19
pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they paid,
and/or the services for which their fees were paid, without having
their tuition and fees refunded to them.
The Plaintiff contends that she and the putative class are entitled
to a refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational services,
facilities, access and/or opportunities that the Defendant has not
provided. Even if Drexel claims it did not have a choice in
canceling in-person classes, it nevertheless has improperly
retained funds for services it is not providing, she adds.
Since March 16, 2020, Drexel has not held any in-person classes.
Classes that have continued have only been offered in an online
format, with no in-person instruction.
Ms. Friedman is an undergraduate student at Drexel's Westphal
College of Media Arts & Design studying in the Entertainment and
Arts Management Program with a concentration in theater. She paid
$17,382 in tuition and fees to the Defendant for the Winter 2020
term and $17,382 for the Spring 2020 term.
Drexel is a large private university, with an enrollment of
approximately 25,000 students. The University is organized into 27
colleges and offers more than 80 degree options for undergraduate
students as well as more than 120 graduate and certificate
programs. Drexel also operates an online program offering more than
150 graduate and undergraduate courses online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Obergfell, Esq.
Sarah N. Westcot, 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
swestcot@bursor.com
EDOARDO MELONI: Dr. Newman Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as HOWARD NEWMAN, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. EDOARDO MELONI, P.A. d/b/a
THE MELONI LAW FIRM, Case No. 0:20-cv-60027-UU (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. granting his motion for class certification of:
"all persons (a) with a Florida address, (b) to whom
Edoardo Meloni, P.A. d/b/a The Meloni Law Firm mailed an
initial debt collection communication not returned as
undeliverable, (c) in connection with the collection of a
debt incurred primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes, (d) between January 6, 2019 and January 6, 2020,
(e) which demanded payment on the subject debt within 30
days of the date the communication was mailed to that
person";
2. appointing him as class representative; and
3. appointing Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC as class
counsel.
Dr. Newman seeks relief for himself and for all other Florida
consumers who received similar debt collection letters from the
Defendant. He brings claims under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act to hold the Defendant accountable for its failures to
provide adequate disclosures under the law.
The Defendant is a law firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
James L. Davidson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
EVENFLO COMPANY: Faces Brinkerhoff Class Suit in S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evenflo Company, Inc.
The case is styled as Kristen Brinkerhoff, Individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Evenflo Company, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00163-WHR (S.D. Ohio, April 27, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.
Evenflo Company, Inc., is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts
and principally engages in the design, research and development,
manufacturing, marketing and sale of Evenflo Baby and ExerSaucer
branded juvenile products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
SAHPIRO, HABER & URMY, LLP
53 State St.
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 439-3939
Fax: (617) 439-0134
Email: imcloughlin@shulaw.com
FEDEX FREIGHT: Settlement in Emetoh Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THEODORE A. EMETOH, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., an Arkansas
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-07272-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne G. Rogers of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland
Division, granted the Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23 based upon the terms set forth in the
First Amended Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release. The
Court finds that the settlement as proposed through the Amended
Motion and Amended Settlement and Release Agreement appears to be
fair and reasonable and to provide significant benefit to the
Settlement Classes.
Named Plaintiff Theodore A. Emetoh is appointed as Class
Representative, and the Named Plaintiff's counsel, Shaun Setareh
and William M. Pao of the Setareh Law Group is appointed Class
Counsel.
The proposed settlement class defined in the settlement is
provisionally certified for purposes of the settlement only.
The proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement, and the date and
location of the final approval hearing are approved.
The Final Approval Hearing is set for July 21, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
The Court approved, as to form and content, the Notice of Class
Action Settlement, as well as the procedure for settlement class
members to participate in, to opt out of, and to object to, the
settlement as set forth in the Class Notice.
The Court directed the mailing of the Class Notice Packet to all
the settlement class members by First-Class Mail.
The Court ordered the following Implementation Schedule for further
proceedings:
a. Deadline for Defendants to submit Settlement Class Member
contact information to Settlement Administrator - March 16, 2020
[30 days after preliminary approval]
b. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail the Class
Notice Packet to Settlement Class Members - March 25, 2020 [40 days
after preliminary approval]
c. Deadline for Settlement Class Members to postmark Requests
for Exclusion, Objection to settlement and disputes regarding the
number of workweeks - May 11, 2020 [45 days after mailing of Class
Notice Packet]
d. Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlements - June 16, 2020 [30 days
before the Final Fairness and Approval Hearing]
e. Final Fairness and Approval Hearing - July 21, 2020 at 2:00
p.m.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/cfzMyH from Leagle.com.
Theodore A. Emetoh, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Alexandra Rochelle
McIntosh -- alex@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & William
Matthew Pao -- william@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.
FedEx Freight, Inc., an Arkansas corporation, Defendant,
represented by Keith Adam Jacoby -- kjacoby@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, Linda Nguyen Bollinger -- lbollinger@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Sandra Colene Isom, FedEx Freight, Inc. &
Sophia Behnia -- sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..
FITNESS INT'L: Winters Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fitness International, LLC d/b/a L.A.
Fitness, Case No. 2:20-cv-00826-SMB (D. Ariz., April 28, 2020),
seeks damages resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant
in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related
regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy.
According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant did not possess the
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system on his cellular telephone.
Further, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry since at 30 days prior to receiving
such calls. The Defendant continued to call 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 Mesa, Arizona.
The Defendant is a mortgage banker.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 800-400-6808
Fax: 800-520-5523
Email: david@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
FLOWERS FOODS: Appeals M.D. Fla. Decision in Martins FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Flowers Foods, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's ruling issued in the lawsuit entitled Daniel
Martins v. Flowers Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
8:16-cv-03145-MSS-JSS, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.
The appellant's brief is due on or before May 20, 2020.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks overtime compensation, declaratory relief, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Daniel Martins performed delivery and merchandising services to
local retailers of bakery and snack food products manufactured or
sold by Flowers.
The appellate case is captioned as Daniel Martins v. Flowers Foods,
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-11378, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee DANIEL MARTINS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Chanelle Ventura, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
8151 Peters Rd., Ste. 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
Adeash AJ Lakraj, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
191 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 4200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 965-1909
Defendants-Appellants FLOWERS FOODS, INC., FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF
BRADENTON, LLC, FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF VILLA RICA, LLC, FLOWERS
BAKING CO. OF MIAMI, LLC, FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF JACKSONVILLE and
FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF THOMASVILLE, LLC, are represented by:
Nathan J. Allen, Esq.
Kevin Patrick Hishta, Esq.
Calvin Garner Sanford, Jr., Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
191 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 4800
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 881-1300
- and -
Christopher M. Cascino, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
155 N Wacker Dr., Ste. 4300
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 558-1220
- and -
Santen Hanrahan, Esq.
Benjamin R. Holland, Esq.
Margaret Santen Hanrahan, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
201 S College St., Ste. 2300
Charlotte, NC 28244
Telephone: (704) 342-2588
- and -
Helen Anne Palladeno, Esq.
Kevin Douglas Zwetsch, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
100 N Tampa St., Ste. 3600
Tampa, FL 33602-5867
Telephone: (813) 221-7449
- and -
Michael Dean Ray, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. RAY
124 S Miami Ave.
Miami, FL 33130-1605
Telephone: (305) 377-9000
FM JANITORIAL: Vondergathen Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Darcy Vondergathen and Andre Grover, and all others similarly
situated v. FM Janitorial Services, Inc. No. 2, Jose Rodriguez and
Maria Joya, Case No. 5:20-cv-00160-FL (E.D.N.C., April 15, 2020),
seeks payment of back wages and an equal amount of liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs for workers under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and
Hour Division investigated FM Janitorial and concluded that they
had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay its
employees overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, but when
FM Janitorial did not agree to voluntarily pay back wages, USDOL
decided not to pursue collecting the wages through filing a
lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs and their coworkers worked for the restaurant
staffing company, FM Janitorial Services, Inc.
The Defendants are the staffing company. The Individual Defendants
owned and operated the staffing company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Clermont F. Ripley, Esq.
Carol L. Brooke, Esq.
NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
P.O. Box 28068
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: 919-856-2154
E-mail: clermont@ncjustice.org.
carol@ncjustice.org
FOCUSINC INT'L: Stein Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
Naftali Stein v. Moshe Greenfeld, and Focusinc International Corp.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01929 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 2020), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law on
behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
seeking to recover unpaid compensation and liquidated damages.
Mr. Stein was employed as a professional recruiter at the Corporate
Defendant on November 6, 2012.
The Corporate Defendant is in the business of recruiting workers
for businesses. Mr. Greenfeld is an owner, officer and/or agent of
the Corporate Defendant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2525
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
FORBES SECURITY: Faces Harrington Suit in California Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forbes Security, Inc.
The case is captioned as MICHAEL HARRINGTON, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF,
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. FORBES SECURITY, INC. and DOES
1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20584155 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., April 15, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong. A Case
Management Conference will be held on Sept. 16, 2020.
Forbes Security is a computer software company based in San Rafael,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Andrew Grover, Esq.
KELLER GROVER LLP
1965 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (415) 543-1305
Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
FORESTERS LIFE: Violates California Insurance Code, Siino Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Siino, Individually and on Behalf of the Class; v. FORESTERS
LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Case
No. 4:20-cv-02904-KAW (N.D. Cal. April 28, 2020), is brought to
recover for injuries and damages resulting from the Defendant's
violations of the California Insurance Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that Foresters refuses to comply with
mandatory provisions of the California Insurance Code, as well as
California common law regulating the lapse and termination of life
insurance policies. Since January 1, 2013, Foresters and other
related entities have systematically and purposely failed to
provide certain classes of policy owners, insureds, assignees and
others, proper notices of pending lapse or termination, according
to the complaint. Foresters has failed to notify thousands of
policy owners of their right to designate someone to receive
critical notices and information regarding life insurance, despite
being required to do so on an annual basis.
Ultimately, the Defendant has robbed thousands of their customers
and beneficiaries of the investment in such policies, policy
benefits, as well as the security intended to be provided from such
insurance. As a result, Foresters has failed to properly administer
policies, evaluate the status of payments due under policies and
pay claims to beneficiary for policies improperly lapsed or
terminated, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual, policy owner, and named insured.
Foresters Life Insurance and Annuity Company is a New York Company,
registered to do business in California and is licensed by the
California Department of Insurance to sell life insurance here in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Georg M. Capielo, Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Phone: (619) 234-9000
Fax: (619) 750-0413
Email: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
sball@einsurelaw.com
GC SERVICES: Jackson Appeals Memorandum and Order to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff LaToya Jackson filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum & Order dated February 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit
styled Jackson v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No.
18-cv-5763, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Brooklyn).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
GC Services Limited Partnership provides accounts receivable and
customer care solutions to public and private sector organizations.
It offers first party receivable programs, including cure programs,
early stage collections, and pre charge-off collections; third
party receivables management programs, such as post charge-off
collections and skip tracing services.
The appellate case is captioned as Jackson v. GC Services Limited
Partnership, Case No. 20-1206, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LaToya Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
1 Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (646) 459-7971
Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
Defendant-Appellee GC Services Limited Partnership is represented
by:
Emily Bab Kirsch, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 549-0421
GEMSTONE SUPERMARKETS: Santiagos Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alida Urizar Santiagos, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. GEMSTONE SUPERMARKETS INC. d/b/a KEY FOOD
SUPERMARKETS, DAVID MANDELL, and RAYMOND NEGRON, Case No.
1:20-cv-01934 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked hours in excess of 40 per workweek but was not
paid overtime wages, as required by the FLSA and the NYLL,
according to the complaint. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff and
other non-exempt, non-managerial employees of Gemstone at
"straight-time" rates, thereby, failing to pay them overtime wages
for hours worked over 40 per workweek.
The Defendants also engaged in a practice of time-shaving by
rounding the hours worked by the Plaintiff and the Supermarket
Workers down to the nearest half hour for purposes of calculating
their compensation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a stocker in the
meat department at the Key Food Supermarket.
Gemstone Supermarkets Inc. is a New York corporation that owns,
operates, and does business as Key Food Supermarkets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Galen C. Baynes, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 583-9500
Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
baynes@pechmanlaw.com
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Hachem Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company's motion to dismiss the remaining claims
in the "Hachem case" remains pending, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
Since November 2017, several putative shareholder class actions
under the federal securities laws have been filed against GE and
certain affiliated individuals and consolidated into a single
action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the Hachem case).
In October 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a fifth amended
consolidated class action complaint naming as defendants GE and
current and former GE executive officers. It alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 related to insurance reserves and accounting for
long-term service agreements and seeks damages on behalf of
shareholders who acquired GE stock between February 27, 2013 and
January 23, 2018.
As reported by the Class Action Reporter on November 15, 2019, GE
filed a motion to dismiss, and in August 2019 the court dismissed a
majority of the claims, including all of the claims related to
insurance reserves.
The Company disclosed in its Form 10-K that it filed a motion to
dismiss in December 2019.
General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Houston Class Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
The "Houston case" against General Electric Company, among other
defendants, remains stayed pending resolution of the motion to
dismiss the "Hachem case" pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, 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 October 2018, a putative class action (the Houston case) was
filed in New York state court naming as defendants GE, certain GE
subsidiaries and current and former GE executive officers and
employees. It alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of
senior notes issued in 2016 and rescission of transactions
involving those notes. This case has been stayed pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss the Hachem case.
General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Defends Mahar Securities Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company continues to face the Mahar case in New
York state court, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019.
The Company said, "In July 2018, a putative class action (the Mahar
case) was filed in New York state court naming as defendants GE,
former GE executive officers, a former member of GE's Board of
Directors and KPMG. It alleged violations of Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements
related to insurance reserves and performance of GE's business
segments in GE Stock Direct Plan registration statements and
documents incorporated therein by reference and seeks damages on
behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock between July 20, 2015
and July 19, 2018 through the GE Stock Direct Plan. In February
2019, this case was dismissed. In March 2019, plaintiffs filed an
amended derivative complaint naming the same defendants. In April
2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In
October 2019, the court denied GE's motion to dismiss and stayed
the case pending the outcome of the Hachem case. In November 2019,
the plaintiffs moved to re-argue to challenge the stay, and GE
cross-moved to re-argue the denial of the motion to dismiss and
filed a notice of appeal."
General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Still Faces Bezio Suit in New York State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company continues to face the Bezio securities
complaint, as amended, in New York state court, 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 2018, a lawsuit (the Bezio case) was filed in New York
state court derivatively on behalf of participants in GE's 401(k)
plan (the GE Retirement Savings Plan (RSP)), and alternatively as a
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock
between February 26, 2013 and January 24, 2018, alleging violations
of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged
misstatements and omissions related to insurance reserves and
performance of GE's business segments in a GE RSP registration
statement and documents incorporated therein by reference.
In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended derivative
complaint naming as defendants GE, former GE executive officers and
Fidelity Management Trust Company, as trustee for the GE RSP.
In January 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss, and in November
2019, the court dismissed the remaining claims and the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal.
In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended derivative
complaint, and in January 2020, GE filed a motion to dismiss.
General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: GCDC Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
GCDC LLC d/b/a GCDC GRILLED CHEESE BAR, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES
GROUP, INC., a corporation, AND SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD, a
corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01094-TJK (D. Colo., April 27, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' refusal to cover business losses
relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The lawsuit arises from the counter-measures taken by the District
of Columbia requiring the closure of many businesses and
restricting almost all public activities in fighting the COVID-19
pandemic.
GCDC filed a claim with its business insurance carrier, the
Defendants, and was denied coverage on the basis of indecipherable
exclusions and endorsements added unilaterally to its policy, says
the complaint. GCDC and other restaurants similarly situated bought
full-spectrum, comprehensive insurance for their businesses--not
just for damage to their physical premises and equipment. These
restaurants believed that they had comprehensive coverage that
would apply to business interruptions under circumstances like
these, where they have done everything right to protect their
businesses and the public. Such coverage is important, if not
vital, because profit margins in the restaurant industry are slim
and reserve funds tend to be low. Hence, business interruptions are
a particular concern of this industry.
The Plaintiff contends that had the Defendants wanted to exclude
the risks of a pandemic--and the necessary public health
counter-measures that would mandate business closures and
population-wide social distancing--they should have done so
plainly, as they did with numerous other risks. But they did not.
The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief, damages and insurance
coverage owed under policies issued by the Defendant.
GCDC is an eatery located in prime Pennsylvania Avenue.
Hartford Financial is a United States-based investment and
insurance company. Sentinel operates as an insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
Victoria S. Nugent, Esq.
Julie Selesnick, Esq.
Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
Eric Kafka, Esq.
Karina G. Puttieva, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
vnugent@cohenmilstein.com
jselesnick@cohenmilstein.com
ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
ekafka@cohenmilstein.com
kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Andre M. Mura, Esq.
Karen Barth Menzies, Esq.
Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
Steve Lopez, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
amm@classlawgroup.com
kbm@classlawgroup.com
amz@classlawgroup.com
sal@classlawgroup.com
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Refuses to Pay COVID-19 Losses, Pigment Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pigment Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. and
SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Case No. 3:20-cv-00794-BEN-JLB
(S.D. Cal., April 28, 2020), seeks a declaratory judgment that
Hartford is contractually obligated to pay business interruption
losses incurred due to the Plaintiff's and other class members'
compliance with COVID-19 Civil Authority Orders.
The Plaintiff and other businesses nationwide purchased commercial
property insurance to ensure that they would not be forced to close
their doors for good if they were shuttered temporarily by an
unanticipated crisis. Such a crisis is now upon us, but Hartford
and other insurers are refusing to pay the claims, the Plaintiff
avers.
Despite the provision of business interruption coverage in these
policies, the Plaintiff argues, the Defendants are denying their
obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered
expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical loss and damage
to the insured property arising from COVID-19 Civil Authority
Orders put in place as a precaution to slow the contagion.
The Plaintiff now brings this action on behalf of a Nationwide
Class and a California Sub-Class of policyholders, who purchased
standard Hartford commercial property insurance to insure property
in the United States and California, respectively, where such
policies provide for business income loss and extra expense
coverage and do not exclude coverage for pandemics, and who have
suffered losses due to measures put into place by a COVID-19 Civil
Authority Order.
Pigment operates several retail stores in San Diego County that
sell artisan-crafted home goods, furniture, and plants and host
community workshops and events.
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Hartford,
Connecticut. The Company owns subsidiaries, directly and
indirectly, that issue, among other things, property
insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benny C. Goodman III, Esq.
Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619/231-1058
Fax: 619/231-7423
Email: bennyg@rgrdlaw.com
rachelj@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561/750-3000
Fax: 561/750-3364
Email: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 367-7100
Fax: 631/367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
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
Fax: 973/994-1744
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 584-0700
Fax: 212/584-0799
Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
sweiss@seegerweiss.com
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: SA Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
SA HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, 1000 MADISON AVENUE LLC, ASTORIA CAKES
LLC, CAFE FFOCACCIA, INC., REALTEK LLC, SA MIDTOWN LLC, BAILEY'S
RESTAURANT LLC, SA SPECIAL EVENTS, INC., SASE LLC, EIGHTY THIRD AND
FIRST LLC, 265 LAFAYETTE RISTORANTE LLC, FELICE GOLD STREET LLC, SA
61 ST MANAGEMENT LLC, SA YORK AVE LLC, SA THIRD AVE CAFE LLC, SABF
LLC, FELICE CHAMBERS LLC, and FELICE WATER STREET LLC on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL
SERVICES GROUP, INC., HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and SENTINAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, Case No. 1:20-cv-03258 (S.D.N.Y., April
24, 2020), alleges that the Defendants 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.
The lawsuit seeks 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 the Defendants are liable for the losses
suffered by policyholders.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed class of
policyholders, who paid premiums in exchange for business insurance
policies that included lost business income and extra expense
coverage.
The Defendants and most insurance companies have issued all-risk
commercial property insurance policies with business interruption
coverage.
On March 11, 2020, World Health Organization Director General
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a
worldwide pandemic. On March 16, 2020, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and members of the national Coronavirus
Task Force issued to the American public guidance, styled as "30
Days to Slow the Spread" for stopping the spread of COVID-19.
Hartford is a United States-based investment and insurance company.
Sentinel Insurance operates as an insurance company. Sentinel
provides property and casualty insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS
77 Water Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 584-0700
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
HILCO REDEVELOPMENT: Faces Solis Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hilco Redevelopment
LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Antonio Solis and Juan Solis,
Juan Rangel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hilco Redevelopment LLC; HRE Crawford LLC; Heneghan
Wrecking & Excavating Co.; Controlled Demolitions, Inc.; V3
Companies, Ltd.; Commercial Liabilities Partners LLC; Marine
Technology Solutions LLC; and Morgan/Harbour LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-02348 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Martha M. Pacold.
The lawsuit alleges violation of civil rights.
Hilco Redevelopment provides infrastructure construction
services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan I. Loevy, Esq.
Arthur R. Loevy, Esq.
Cindy Tsai, Esq.
Danielle Hamilton, Esq.
John Thomas Hazinski, Esq.
Julie Marie Goodwin, Esq.
Michael I Kanovitz, Esq.
Renee Spence, Esq.
Scott R. Rauscher, Esq.
Steven Edwards Art, Esq.
LOEVY & LOEVY
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 243-5900
E-mail: jon@loevy.com
arthur@loevy.com
cindy@loevy.com
hamilton@loevy.com
hazinski@loevy.com
julie@loevy.com
mike@loevy.com
spence@loevy.com
scott@loevy.com
steve@loevy.com
ISS FACILITY: Zamano Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ZAMANO v. ISS FACILITY SERVICES, INC.; ISS FACILITY SERVICES
CALIFORNIA, INC.; ISS FACILITY SERVICES HOLDING INC.; TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA,
INC.; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 to
100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV15833 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., April 24, 2020), is a class action complaint filed by the
Plaintiff on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current
and former aggrieved employees seeking civil penalties pursuant to
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay for all
hours worked at minimum wage and overtime hours worked at the
overtime rate of pay, failed to authorize or permit legally
compliant first meal periods, and failed to authorize or permit
legally compliant rest periods in violation of the Labor Code.
ISS Facility was founded in 2006. The Company's line of business
includes providing facilities support management and consulting
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
aburton@lelawfirm.com
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Cambridge Retirement System Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit
styled, Cambridge Retirement System v. JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., et
al., 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.
JELD-WEN Holding said, "On February 19, 2020, Cambridge Retirement
System filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company,
current and former Company executives and various Onex-related
entities alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the individual defendants and Onex-related
entities. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief
and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Company has not yet
been served with the complaint but has reviewed the allegations.
The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the action. Because the lawsuit is in
the very initial stages, no assessment as to the likelihood or
range of any potential adverse outcome can be made at this time."
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Still Faces Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. continues to defend itself in the case
styled, In Re: Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The Company said, "On October 19, 2018, Grubb Lumber Company, on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action lawsuit against us and one of our competitors in the
doors market, Masonite Corporation ("Masonite"), in the Eastern
District of Virginia. We subsequently received additional
complaints from and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of
interior molded doors. The suits have been consolidated into two
separate actions, a Direct Purchaser Action and an Indirect
Purchaser Action. The suits allege that Masonite and we violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and, in the Indirect Purchaser
Action, related state law antitrust and consumer protection laws,
by engaging in a scheme to artificially raise, fix, maintain or
stabilize the prices of interior molded doors in the United States.
The complaints seek unquantified ordinary and treble damages,
declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The
Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously
defend against the actions. On September 18, 2019, the court
denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the lawsuits in their
entirety and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss various
state law claims and to limit all claims to a four-year statute of
limitations. As a result, the plaintiffs' damages period is
limited to the four-year period between 2014 and 2018. At this
early stage of the proceedings, we are unable to conclude that a
loss is probable or to estimate the potential magnitude of any loss
in the matters, although a loss could have a material adverse
effect on our operating results, consolidated financial position or
cash flows."
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
JP MORGAN: Placeholder Class Certification Bid Filed in "Muha"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHARLOTTE MUHA, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JP MORGAN CHASE
BANK NA and TRANS UNION LLC,, Case No. 2:20-cv-00591 (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
KAUFF'S INC: Conchado Seeks to Certify Tow Truck Drivers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as YOSBREY CONCHADO, DAVID
DEVITO, ANTONIO STURGIS, and AHMAD JONES, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. KAUFF'S, INC., a foreign
corporation, d/b/a Kauff's Transportation, Kauff's Transportation
Systems, and Kauff's Towing and Transportation, GUARDIAN FLEET
SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Kauff's
Transportation, Kauff's Transportation Systems, and Kauff's Towing
and Transportation, and FRANCIS GEOFFREY RUSSELL a/k/a GEOFFREY
RUSSELL, a/k/a GEOFF RUSSELL, individually, Case No.
9:20-cv-80344-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order conditionally certifying the case as a collective action and
facilitating notice to the proposed class consisting of:
"all current and former tow truck drivers employed by the
Defendants throughout the state of Florida and not properly paid
overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 and employed for
any length of time since February 2017 (three years prior to the
filing of the instant lawsuit)."
The Plaintiffs in this case seek to recoup overtime compensation
and other damages.
Kauff's was founded in 1997. The company's line of business
includes furnishing automotive services.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP
E-Mail: DRL@PBL-Law.com
3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 544-8900
Facsimile: (561) 544-8999
The Defendants are represented by:
Melissa S. Zinkil, Esq.
E-Mail: melissa.zinkil@akerman.com
Akerman LLP
777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 1100 West Tower
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 653-5000
Facsimile: (561) 659-6313
- and -
John D. Cox, Esq.
Scott D. Spiegel, Esq.
LYNCH COX GILMAN & GOODMAN, PSC
500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 2100
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (502) 589-4215
Facsimile: (502) 589-4994
E-Mail: jcox@lcgandm.com
sspiegel@lcgandm.com
KBR INC: Hearing on Appeal in Suit vs. Former Subsidiary Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, 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 appeal in the class action suit
initiated by former employees of the company's former Chadian
subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. (SSI), remains pending. A
hearing was set for February 28, 2020.
In May 2018, former employees of the Company's former Chadian
subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. (SSI), filed a class action
suit claiming unpaid damages arising from the ESSO Chad Development
Project for Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) dating back to the
early 2000s. Exxon is also named as a defendant in the case. The
SSI employees previously filed two class action cases in or around
2005 and 2006 for alleged unpaid overtime and bonuses. The Chadian
Labour Court ruled in favor of the SSI employees for unpaid
overtime resulting in a settlement of approximately US$25 million
which was reimbursed by Exxon under its contract with SSI. The
second case for alleged unpaid bonuses was ultimately dismissed by
the Supreme Court of Chad.
The current case claims US$122 million in unpaid bonuses
characterized as damages rather than employee bonuses to avoid the
previous Supreme Court dismissal and a 5-year statute of
limitations on wage-related claims. SSI's initial defense was
filed and a hearing was held in December 2018. A merits hearing
was held in February 2019.
In March 2019, the Labour Court issued a decision awarding the
plaintiffs approximately US$34 million including a US$2 million
provisional award. SSI and Exxon have appealed the award and
requested suspension of the provisional award which was approved on
April 2, 2019. Exxon and SSI filed a submission to the Court of
Appeal on June 21, 2019. The court has set a hearing for February
28, 2020.
The Company said, "At this time we do not believe a risk of
material loss is probable related to this matter, and therefore we
have not accrued any loss provisions. SSI is no longer an existing
entity in Chad or the United States. Further, we believe any
amounts ultimately paid to the former employees related to this
adverse ruling would be reimbursable by Exxon based on the
applicable contract."
KBR, Inc. is a global engineering, construction, and services
company supporting the energy, petrochemicals, government services,
and civil infrastructure sectors. The Company offers a wide range
of services through two business segments, Energy and Chemicals
(E&C) and Government and Infrastructure (G&I). The company is based
in Houston, Texas.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE: Zwillo V Sues Over Refusal to Pay Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zwillo V, Corp. d/b/a Westport Flea Market Bar and Grill,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO., Case No. 4:20-cv-00339-RK (W.D. Mo., April
27, 2020), is brought for declaratory judgment and breach of
contract arising from the Defendant's refusal to pay claims related
to COVID-19 as required by its property insurance agreements it
sold to the Plaintiff and other businesses.
The Plaintiff purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance
policy from the Defendant to protect it in the event of property
loss and business interruption. COVID-19 and the resulting response
by state and local governments have caused physical loss to the
Plaintiff's property and have interrupted the Plaintiff's business,
according to the complaint. Yet, the Defendant has refused to honor
its promise to provide the protection that the Plaintiff
purchased.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is not unique. The
insurance industry appears to be taking a uniform approach to the
current pandemic: deny coverage even when the policy they drafted
and offered to insureds, and the policy paid for by the insureds,
does not contain an exclusion for pandemic-related losses. The
Plaintiff's policy with the Defendant is one such policy and
exemplifies the broken promise from insurance companies across the
country.
The Plaintiff owns and operates the Westport Flea Market Bar and
Grill, a Kansas dining establishment.
The Plaintiff estimates that its revenues are down at least 80%
because of COVID-19 and the Stay at Home Orders. The Defendant has
caused material harm to the Plaintiff and the proposed class by
refusing coverage under the Policy, says the complaint.
Lexington Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
Curtis Shank, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 714-7100
Email: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
wilders@stuevesiegel.com
shank@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
J. Kent Emison, Esq.
LANGDON & EMISON LLC
911 Main Street
PO Box 220
Lexington, MO 64067
Phone: (660) 259-6175
Fax: (660) 259-4571
Email: kent@lelaw.com
- and -
John J. Schirger, Esq.
Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
Kansas City, MO 64111
Phone: 816-561-6500
Facsimile: 816-561-6501
Email: jschirger@millerschirger.com
mlytle@millerschirger.com
jfeierabend@millerschirger.com
- and -
Richard F. Lombardo, Esq.
Dawn M. Parsons, Esq.
Michael F. Barzee, Esq.
Rachael D. Longhofer, Esq.
SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN, P.C.
2001 Wyandotte Street
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: 816-931-0500
Fax: 816-931-5775
Email: rlombardo@sls-law.com
dparsons@sls-law.com
mbarzee@sls-law.com
rlonghofer@sls-law.com
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Laborers' Fund Appeals Order to 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Laborers Local #231 Pension Fund, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Laborers Local
#231 Pension v. Rory Cowan, et al., Case No. 1-17-cv-00478, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages sustained, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as
well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and
such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Lionbridge and an affiliate of private equity firm H.I.G. Capital
L.L.C. engaged in a merger in which Lionbridge stockholders
received $5.75 per share in cash and Lionbridge became a wholly
owned subsidiary of HIG. Rory J. Cowan served as CEO of Lionbridge
during the merger.
The merger agreement values the Company at about $356 million. In
advocating the merger, the Defendants espoused financial
projections that completely ignored concrete business plans and a
valuation of the company that was based on those projections which
analysts estimate at close to a billion.
The appellate case is captioned as Laborers Local #231 Pension v.
Rory Cowan, et al., Case No. 20-1844, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants LABORERS LOCAL NO. 231 PENSION FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, et
al., are represented by:
Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
David M. Sborz, Esq.
Craig J. Springer, Esq.
ANDREWS & SPRINGER
3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305
Greenville, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 504-4957
E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
Defendants-Appellees RORY J. COWAN, HIG CAPITAL LLC, LBT
ACQUISITION INC., LBT MERGER SUB INC., and LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES
INC., are represented by:
Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 570-1339
E-mail: dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com
– and –
David John Teklits, Esq.
MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL
1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 351-9292
– and –
Anne S. Gaza, Esq.
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR
1000 North King Street, Rodney Square
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 571-6727
– and –
Adam T. Humann, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
– and –
Elena C. Norman, Esq.
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR
1000 North King Street, Rodney Square
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 571-6600
– and –
Joshua Z. Rabinovitz, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS
300 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2400
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 862-2284
– and –
Robert M. Vrana, Esq.
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR
1000 North King Street, Rodney Square
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 571-6726
MACRO COMPANIES: Guillory Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT GUILLORY, Individually
And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. MACRO COMPANIES,
INC. OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA DELAWARE d/b/a MACRO OIL COMPANY,
INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-01298-MJJ-PJH (W.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order granting conditional certification of the
following defined putative class and authorizing Notice to be sent
to the class:
"United States based drivers/laborers employed by Macro who
worked for Macro in the U.S. Virgin Islands from
approximately October 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 and who
were paid a day rate during that time period and specifically
excluding any such driver/laborer who participated in the
prior U.S. Department of Labor settlement as reflected in the
Summary of Unpaid Wages Form WH-56 executed by Macro's
representative."
The Plaintiff further asks the Court to authorize the following
schedule:
-- 30 days from entry of order approving notice to Potential
Class Members:
Defendant to provide to Plaintiff’s counsel in Excel (.xlsx)
format the following information regarding all Putative
Class Members: full name; last known address(es) with city,
state, and zip Code; last known e-mail addresses; beginning
date(s) of employment and ending date(s) of employment (if
applicable) in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
-- 20 days from Class Counsel's receipt of the Excel
Spreadsheet Listing from Defendant:
Plaintiff's Counsel shall send a copy of the Court-approved
Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members by
First Class U.S. Mail and e-mail. Plaintiff's counsel shall
also submit to counsel for Defendant a list of each Putative
Class Member with the date of mailing to each person.
-- 30 days from initial mailing and e-mailing Notice and
Consent Forms to Potential Class Members:
Plaintiff's Counsel shall send an identical Notice and
Consent Form to Potential Class Members by the same methods
as the initial Notice.
-- 60 days from mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to
Potential Class Members:
The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days from the date
of mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to return their
signed Consent forms to Plaintiff's Counsel for filing with
the Court.
Founded in 1929, Macro Oil Company, Inc. is a multifaceted
corporation that is dedicated to providing any and all services
related to the distribution of petroleum [CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713 352-1100
Facsimile: 713 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
Adam R. Credeur, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
417 W. University Avenue (70506)
P.O. Box 4325
Lafayette, La. 70502
Telephone: 337-235-5294
Facsimile: 337-235-1095
E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
adam@kwdejean.com
MEDICAL SOLUTIONS: Buford Labor Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURA BUFORD, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., a
Nebraska limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive. Defendants, Case No. 4:18-CV-04864-YGR (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District California granted the Parties' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and
Release.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the proposed
Settlement, as embodied in the terms of the Joint Stipulation, is
preliminarily approved as a fair, reasonable, and adequate
settlement of this case that is in the best interests of the
Settlement Class Members, in light of the factual, legal,
practical, and procedural considerations raised by the case.
Pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699(l)(2), the proposed
settlement of claims under PAGA with respect to both the Settlement
Class and the SAG also is approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in furtherance of the PAGA statutes. The Joint
Stipulation is incorporated by reference into the Order and is
preliminarily adopted as an Order of the Court.
Solely for the purpose of the settlement, the Court preliminarily
and conditionally certified the stipulated Settlement Class as
defined in the Joint Stipulation. To the extent the definition of
the Settlement Class differs from the class definition alleged in
the First Amended Complaint, any and all class claims not
specifically included in the Joint Stipulation are dismissed
without prejudice.
Plaintiff Laura Buford is preliminarily appointed as Class
Representative; and Zachary Crosner, Michael Crosner and J. Kirk
Donnelly of Crosner Legal, P.C., are preliminarily appointed as
Class Counsel. CPT Group, Inc. is appointed as Claims
Administrator.
The Parties' proposed plan for class notice and settlement
administration is approved and adopted and the proposed Notice
forms and Opt Out form are approved.
The Court will hold a fairness hearing on July 21, 2020, at 2:00
p.m. All supporting papers, including the Plaintiff's request for
attorneys' fees and costs, will be filed no later than 35 calendar
days before the Fairness Hearing.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/4CVdMd from Leagle.com.
Laura Buford, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and all aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, represented by Michael R.
Crosner -- mike@crosnerlegal.com -- Crosner Legal, PC, David
Michael Watson -- david@crosnerlegal.com -- Crosner Legal, PC &
Zachary Miles Crosner -- zach@crosnerlegal.com -- Crosner Legal
PC.
Medical Solutions, L.L.C., a limited liability corporation,
Defendant, represented by Kenneth Dawson Sulzer, Constangy, Brooks,
Smith & Prophete, LLP, Anthony David Sbardellati, Constangy,
Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP, Matthew Scholl --
mscholl@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP,
Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum -- skrollrosenbaum@constangy.com -- Constangy
Brooks Smith and Prophete LLP & Sayaka Karitani --
skaritani@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete,
LLP.
METLIFE INC: 9th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in Martin Suit vs. MLIC
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2019, that the plaintiffs' appeal from the ruling in the case
styled, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed
December 17, 2015), has been dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium
loan balances within the last four years.
Plaintiffs allege that MLIC 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 MLIC'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.
MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.
METLIFE INC: Owens Suit v. Metropolitan Life in N.D. Ga. Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 trial court has approved the settlement
of the class action suit styled, Owens v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014).
Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of persons for
whom MLIC established a Total Control Account ("TCA") to pay death
benefits under an ERISA plan. The action alleged that MLIC's use
of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits
under some group life insurance policies violated MLIC's fiduciary
duties under ERISA.
On September 27, 2016, the court denied MLIC's summary judgment
motion in full and granted plaintiff's partial summary judgment
motion.
On September 29, 2017, the court certified a nationwide class.
As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, the court
preliminarily approved a proposed settlement on July 29, 2019, in
which MLIC has agreed to pay US$80 million to resolve the claims of
all class members. The settlement does not include or constitute an
admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or
wrongdoing by MLIC.
On November 19, 2019, the court approved the settlement. The
Company accrued the full amount of the settlement payment in prior
periods and the payment was made.
MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.
METLIFE INC: Still Faces Parchmann Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. continues to defend itself in the putative class
action styled, Parchmann v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y., filed
February 5, 2018), 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.
Plaintiff filed this putative class action seeking to represent a
class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common stock from
February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018.
Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board, and its Chief Financial Officer violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing materially false and/or misleading financial
statements.
Plaintiff alleges that MetLife's practices and procedures for
estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits were
inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate internal control over
financial reporting.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
Defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.
MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.
METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Lawsuit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 remains a defendant in a class action
suit styled, City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v.
MetLife, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012).
Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of a class of persons
who either purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February
9, 2011, and October 6, 2011, or purchased or acquired MetLife,
Inc. common stock in the Company's August 3, 2010 offering or the
Company's March 4, 2011 offering.
Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former
directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have purportedly been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.
MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in DeCapua TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David DeCapua filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in his lawsuit styled DeCapua v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-00590-WES, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Rhode Island, Providence.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), by using an automated telephone dialing
system ATDS to send thousands of automated telemarketing text
messages without first obtaining the prior express written consent
of recipients.
The Defendant has moved to dismiss the Class Action Complaint
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and, alternatively, to stay proceedings
pending forthcoming guidance on the definition of an ATDS from the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
The appellate case is captioned as DeCapua v. Metrop. Propty & Cas.
Ins. Co., Case No. 20-1454, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID DECAPUA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Evan J. Ballan, Esq.
Daniel Morris Hutchinson, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
275 Battery St., 29th Flr.
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com
eballan@lchb.com
– and –
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Email: mboyle@meyerwilson.com
mwilson@meyerwilson.com
– and –
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson St., 8th Flr.
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
– and –
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Ave.
Providence, RI 02908-0000
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com
Defendant-Appellee METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY is represented by:
Debra Lee Bogo-Ernst, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 S Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606-0000
Telephone: (312) 701-7403
– and –
Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K St. NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101
Telephone: (202) 263-3328
- and -
Dana M. Horton, Esq.
ROBINSON & COLE LLP
One Financial Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 709-3300
MGT CAPITAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for May 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
MGT Capital Investments, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement of a securities class
action has been scheduled for May 27, 2020.
In September 2018 and October 2018, various shareholders of the
Company filed putative class action lawsuits against the Company,
its Chief Executive Officer and certain of its individual officers
and shareholders, alleging violations of federal securities laws
and seeking damages (the "2018 Securities Class Actions").
The 2018 Securities Class Action followed and referenced the
allegations made against the Company's Chief Executive Officer and
others in the SEC Action.
The first putative class action lawsuit was filed on September 28,
2018, in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, and alleges that the named defendants engaged in a
pump-and-dump scheme to artificially inflate the price of the
Company's stock and that, as a result, defendants' statements about
the Company's business and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at relevant times.
The second putative class action was filed on October 9, 2018, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York and makes similar allegations.
On May 28, 2019, the parties to the 2018 Securities Class Actions
entered into a binding settlement term sheet, and on September 24,
2019, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement.
On August 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the first class action
filed a notice and order of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, and
on October 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the second class action
filed in the federal court in New York an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement.
On December 17, 2019, the court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement. A hearing on final approval
of the settlement has been scheduled for May 27, 2020.
MGT Capital Investments, Inc. engages in bitcoin mining operations
in the Wenatchee Valley area of central Washington. At March 30,
2018, it owned and operated approximately 500 miners located in a
leased facility in Quincy, Washington; and 4,200 miners located in
a leased facility in Sweden, as well as operated approximately
2,100 miners in the Sweden location. The company was founded in
1979 and is headquartered in Durham, North Carolina.
MICRO FOCUS: Bid to Drop Securities Suit in New York Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
case, In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation,
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, remains pending, according to Micro Focus International
plc's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the 12 months ended October 31, 2019.
In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation is
another putative class action on behalf of holders of Micro Focus
ADS filed on May 23, 2018 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against Micro Focus and certain
current and former directors and officers, among others.
On July 26, 2018, the court transferred the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act and of the
Exchange Act.
On September 30, 2019 the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.
On November 4, 2019, Micro Focus and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. That motion is
pending before the Court.
Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.
MICRO FOCUS: Forsyth Class Action in California Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micro Focus International plc said in its Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the 12 months ended
October 31, 2019, that the stay in the class and collective action
styled, Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and HPE, is still in place.
This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18,
2016 and an amended (and operative) complaint was filed on December
19, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, against HP Inc. and HPE 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 of age
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' motions to
compel arbitration and administratively closed the case pending
resolution of the arbitration proceedings. During the period from
November 30, 2017, through the present, the named and opt-in
plaintiffs who signed separation agreements that include class
action waiver and mandatory arbitration provisions filed
arbitration demands.
On December 22, 2017, defendants filed a motion to stay the case
pending arbitrations which was granted on February 6, 2018. The
claims of the arbitration opt-ins have been resolved or dismissed
from the District Court case. Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
complaint on January 27, 2020. The stay of the litigation remains
in place.
Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.
MICRO FOCUS: Jackson Class Action in N.D. Georgia Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micro Focus International plc said in its Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the 12 months ended
October 31, 2019, that the parties in the class action suit styled,
Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, are
continuing to discuss a potential settlement. No further appellate
briefing schedule has been set and the stay in the Northern
District of Georgia remains in place.
This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in
United States District Court in San Jose. Plaintiffs purport to
bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated African-Americans and individuals over the age of forty.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a pattern and practice
of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs and promotions.
On September 29, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add
an additional plaintiff and a claim alleging that defendants
engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in
hiring.
On January 12, 2018, defendants moved to transfer the matter to the
United States District Court in the Northern District of Georgia.
Defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and
to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition.
On July 11, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
this action for improper venue, and also partially dismissed and
struck certain claims without prejudice to re-filing in the
appropriate venue.
On July 23, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
On August 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal of the Northern District of California action with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On August 15, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay their lawsuit
in the Northern District of Georgia, which was granted by the
court.
On October 1, 2018, the Georgia court granted the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to stay and administratively close the Georgia
action until the Ninth Circuit appeal is decided. The parties are
continuing to discuss a potential settlement, no further appellate
briefing schedule has been set, and the stay in the Northern
District of Georgia remains in place.
Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.
MICRO FOCUS: Prelim. Approval Hearing for Araiza Pact Held
----------------------------------------------------------
The hearing for the preliminary approval of the settlement of the
case styled, Araiza vs. HP Inc. and HPE, was set for May 8, 2020,
according to Micro Focus International plc's Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the 12 months ended
October 31, 2019.
On December 29, 2015, former PPS (HP Inc.) employee Daniel Araiza
filed a California class action against HP Inc. and HPE in Santa
Clara County Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges failure to (a)
compensate Field Technical Support Representatives with minimum and
overtime wages for all hours worked, (b) failure to pay exempt and
non-exempt employees all accrued vacation and/or floating holidays
upon separation of employment, (c) to provide meal breaks, and (d)
derivate claims for inaccurate wage statements, waiting time
penalties, unfair business practices, and Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA") penalties. Plaintiff sought to certify three groups
of California employees from December 29, 2011 to the present. The
parties participated in settlement discussions and settled the
lawsuit on March 19, 2019, subject to court approval. Plaintiff
filed its motion for preliminary approval and the preliminary
approval hearing is set for May 8, 2020.
Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.
MICRO FOCUS: Securities Class Action in California Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The stay in the case styled, In re Micro Focus International plc
Securities Litigation, remains in place, according to Micro Focus
International plc's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the 12 months ended October 31, 2019.
In re Micro Focus International plc Securities Litigation is a
putative class action on behalf of holders of Micro Focus filed on
March 28, 2018, in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Mateo against Micro Focus International plc and certain current and
former directors and officers, among others.
Five additional purported holders of Micro Focus ADS filed putative
class actions in the same court, and the court consolidated all
cases. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act. The
court has stayed this lawsuit pending disposition of a similar
lawsuit in the Southern District of New York.
Micro Focus International plc, an infrastructure software company,
develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to
small and medium size enterprises. Micro Focus International plc
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Newbury, the United
Kingdom.
MICROSOFT CORP: McFadden Sues Over Defective Xbox One Controllers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald McFadden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00640 (W.D.
Wash., April 28, 2020), is brought to redress the Defendant's
violation of Washington Consumer Protection Act with regard to its
wireless Microsoft-brand Xbox One controllers, which are
defective.
According to the complaint, the potentiometer within the joystick
component--the mechanism that translates the physical movement of
the thumbstick into movement within the video game--contains a
design flaw such that the wiper component of the potentiometer
scrapes resistive material off a curved track, which then adheres
to the wiper causing unwanted electrical contact, or movement,
without input from the user. Once this damage occurs, the joystick
registers phantom input or stick drift, thwarting accurate
gameplay. Accurate gameplay is the central purpose of video game
controllers.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has been made aware of the
defect through online consumer complaints beginning as early as
2014. The Defendant was also aware of this defect through its own
records of complaints and warranty requests, as well as its own
pre-release testing. Despite this knowledge, the Plaintiff
contends, the Defendant failed to disclose the defect and routinely
refuses to repair the controllers without charge when the defect
manifests. He adds that unlike the warranty on their Xbox game
consoles, which lasts a year, the warranty on their controllers is
just 90 days.
As a result of the Defendant's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices, owners of wireless, Microsoft-brand Xbox One
controllers, including the Plaintiff, have suffered an
ascertainable loss, according to the complaint. As a result of
Microsoft's deceptive conduct, the Plaintiff paid more for the
wireless, Xbox One controllers than they are worth than they would
have had Defendant disclosed the defect; spent money and time
repairing and managing defective controllers and/or buying
replacement controllers; and otherwise have been harmed by the
Defendant's conduct.
The Plaintiff purchased wireless, Microsoft-brand Xbox One
controllers.
Microsoft Corporation is incorporated in the state of Washington
and maintains its principal place of business in Redmond,
Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cindy Heidelberg, Esq.
BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
Seattle, Washington 98104
Phone: 206-652-8660
Fax: 206-652-8290
Email: cheidelberg@bjtlegal.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520
Fax: (202) 800-2730
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Prero Sues in New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mullooly, Jeffrey,
Rooney & Flynn, LLP. The case is styled as Aron Prero, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mullooly,
Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP, Case No. 7:20-cv-03278 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 27, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn LLP was founded in 1962. The
Company's line of business includes providing full service legal
advice.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
285 Passaic St.
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
NESTLE WATERS: Fails to Provide Adequate COBRA Notice, York Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryon York, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-00973 (M.D. Fla., April 28, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff and the putative class
adequate notice of their right to continued health care coverage
under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.
The Defendant, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the
Nestle Waters North American Holdings Group Benefit Plan ("the
Plan"), has repeatedly violated COBRA by failing to provide
participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as
prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health
insurance coverage following an occurrence of a "qualifying event"
as defined by the statute, the Plaintiff contends.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's COBRA notice violates
the COBRA. The Defendant's COBRA notice is not written in a manner
calculated to be understood by the average plan participant because
it attempts to scare individuals away from electing COBRA by
including an ominous warning suggesting that the submission of even
"incomplete" information when electing COBRA may result in civil,
or even criminal, penalties. Additionally, the Defendant's COBRA
notice also violates the COBRA because it includes conflicting
information on when the COBRA continuation coverage form is
actually due. The Defendant's COBRA form also violates the COBRA
because it fails to sufficiently identify the Plan Administrator.
As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members'
ability to maintain their health coverage, the Plaintiff seeks
statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, and other appropriate relief as provided by law.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a logistics
resource in November 2016, and he worked in this capacity until
January 8, 2019, and was a participant in the Plan prior to his
termination.
The Defendant is a foreign corporation with its headquarters in
Stamford, Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Main Number: 813-224-0431
Direct Dial: 813-386-0995
Facsimile: 813-229-8712
Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
NEW YORK: Thomas Prisoner Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as James Thomas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner,
New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision;
Andrew Cuomo, Governor, New York State; Case No. 1:20-cv-03072, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
New York on April 27, 2020.
The Clerk of the Northern District of New York assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-00472-GLS-ATB to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as prisoner civil rights.
Anthony J. Annucci is the Acting Commissioner New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Harriman State
Campus.
The Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Auburn
Correctional Facility, in Auburn, New York, appears pro se.[BN]
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Abrahams Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Nechama Abrahams, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Northstar
Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01931 (E.D.N.Y., April 27,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Stern Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Rayi Stern, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Northstar
Location Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01932 (E.D.N.Y., April 27,
2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
OASIS LEGAL: Davis Appeals S.D. Georgia Decision to 11th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lizzie Davis, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's ruling in the lawsuit entitled Lizzie Davis, et al. v.
Oasis Legal Finance Operating, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00022-DHB-BKE, in the United States Southern District of
Georgia.
The appellate case is captioned as Lizzie Davis, et al. v. Oasis
Legal Finance Operating, et al., Case No. 20-11364, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The appellant's brief is due on or before May 18, 2020.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of putative class members, who entered into loan
agreements with the Oasis Defendants. The Plaintiffs claim that
their loan agreements violate state usury laws.
The case was removed to the Georgia District Court on April 28,
2017. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to strike
the class allegations of the complaint on May 5, 2017. The
Defendants Oasis Legal Finance Holding Company, LLC and Oasis Legal
Finance Operating Company, LLC also filed a separate motion to
dismiss, arguing that they are not parties to the transactions at
issue in the case. The District Court has not ruled on this latter
motion because the case has been stayed pending appeal.
On November 15, 2017, the Georgia District Court denied the Oasis
Defendants' motion to dismiss upon its finding and conclusion that
the forum selection clause and the class action waiver clause in
the loan agreements are void as against Georgia public policy. The
Oasis Defendants appealed this decision.
On August 28, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the District Court's Order denying the motion to
dismiss and the motion to strike the class allegations.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants LIZZIE DAVIS, Individually and on Behalf of
all Others Similarly Situated, et al., are represented by:
C. Dorian Britt, Esq.
Jeremy S. McKenzie, Esq.
KARSMAN MCKENZIE & HART
21 W Park Ave.
Savannah, GA 31401
Telephone: (912) 480-9999
– and –
Robert Bartley Turner, Esq.
SAVAGE TURNER DURHAM
102 E Liberty St., 8th Floor
Savannah, GA 31401
Telephone: (912) 231-1140
E-mail: bturner@savagelawfirm.net
Defendants-Appellees OASIS LEGAL FINANCE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, et
al., are represented by:
William M. McErlean, Esq.
Christine Skoczylas, Esq.
Abby Ammons Vineyard, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP
1 N Wacker Dr., Ste. 4400
Chicago, IL 60606-2833
Telephone: (312) 357-1313
Email: wmcerlean@btlaw.com
christine.skoczylas@btlaw.com
abby.vineyard@btlaw.com
– and –
Michael R. Hackett, Esq.
Timothy W. Mungovan, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE
1 International Place
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 526-9600
Email: mhackett@proskauer.com
tmungovan@proskauer.com
ONE TOUCH: Stevens Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Stevens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ONE TOUCH DIRECT, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-00968 (M.D.
Fla., April 28, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages
and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and Florida common law.
The Defendant has enforced a uniform company-wide policy wherein it
improperly required its non-exempt hourly call-center employees,
like the Plaintiff, to perform work off-the-clock and without pay,
according to the complaint. Although the Plaintiff and routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff were not
paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant in customer
service in Tampa, Florida, since October 2019.
One Touch Direct, Inc., operates call centers throughout the United
States customer support/engagement services to its business
clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
P.O. Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Phone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 North Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: cliff@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Filing of 3rd Amended SEPTA Securities Suit OKd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,
Plaintiff, v. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:12-cv-00993 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Yvette Kane of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
granted Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
("SEPTA")'s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint.
The case is a purported class action alleging securities violations
in connection with Defendant Orrstown's early 2010 public offering
of approximately 1.4 million shares of Orrstown common stock, which
raised almost $40 million dollars. Following a series of
revelations regarding Orrstown's financial condition, Orrstown
reported significant losses for the fourth quarter of 2011, and on
March 15, 2012, filed its 2011 Annual Report, which disclosed that
it had a "material weakness" in its internal controls and had
failed to implement a structured process with appropriate controls
to ensure that updated loan ratings were incorporated timely into
the calculation of the Allowance for Loan Losses.
Orrstown further admitted that, as of March 2012, it had failed to
fully remediate its material weakness in its internal control over
financial reporting relating to loan ratings and its impact on the
allowance for loan losses. On March 23, 2012, Orrstown and its
Board of Directors revealed that they had entered into an agreement
with the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, and a consent order
with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Banking,
requiring them, inter alia, to revise their underwriting and credit
administration policies and strengthen their credit risk management
practices.
On May 12, 2012, SEPTA, on behalf of two classes, filed the
purported class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a) and (b)(3) against Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. and
Orrstown Bank ("Orrstown Defendants"), and several additional
individual Defendants associated with Orrstown. On March 4, 2013,
the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), adding as
Defendants Orrstown's auditor, Smith Elliott Kearns & Co., LLC
("SEK"), and Janney Montgomery Scott, LLC and Sandler O'Neill &
Partners L.P. ("Underwriter Defendants"), the underwriters involved
in the Offering, and alleging that the Defendants issued materially
untrue and/or misleading statements and omissions in violation of
the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and the Exchange Act
of 1934.
The amended complaint asserted claims on behalf of two classes: (1)
the "Securities Act Class," which consists of persons and/or
entities who purchased Orrstown common stock pursuant to, or
traceable to, Orrstown's Feb. 8, 2010 registration statement and
March 23, 2010 prospectus supplement issued in connection with
Orrstown's Offering in March 2010 and were damaged thereby; and (2)
the "Exchange Act Class," which consists of all persons or entities
who purchased Orrstown common stock on the open market between
March 15, 2010 and April 5, 2012 and were damaged thereby. SEPTA
acquired Orrstown stock pursuant to the offering documents for the
March 2010 Offering and also purchased Orrstown common stock on the
open market during the class period.
After extensive briefing, the Court dismissed SEPTA's Securities
and Exchange Act claims against all the Defendants for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. With permission of
the Court, SEPTA filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") against
the same Defendants, which focused exclusively on alleged
materially false and/or misleading statements made by the
Defendants in the offering documents and through the class period
pertaining to the effectiveness of the Orrstown Defendants'
internal controls over underwriting of loans, risk management,
financial reporting and compliance with banking regulations.
All the Defendants filed motions to dismiss, and while those
motions were pending, on Sept. 27, 2016, Orrstown filed a "Notice
of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to Dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint." On Dec. 7, 2016, the Court granted
SEK and the Underwriter Defendants' motions to dismiss and granted
in part and denied in part the Orrstown Defendants' and additional
individual Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court concluded that the allegations of the SAC, coupled with
the SEC Order, support an inference that Orrstown failed to
maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls through
the relevant time period -- second quarter 2010 through 2011 -- and
that such failure resulted in inaccuracies in financial reporting
during that time. Specifically, as to the Securities Act claims
asserted in the SAC (counts one through four), the Court granted
the motions to dismiss all such claims upon the Court's finding
that the SAC failed to allege facts supporting a reasonable
inference that the representations and certifications in Orrstown's
2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K, which was incorporated by
reference in the Offering documents, as to the effectiveness of its
"internal controls over financial reporting" were materially false
and/or misleading when made.
As to the Exchange Act claims asserted in the SAC, the Court
granted the motions as to the claims asserted against SEK (count
six) and all individual Defendants, with the exception of Quinn,
Everly, and Embly. It denied the motions as to the SAC's Exchange
Act claims against the Orrstown Defendants.
After the entry of a case management order in January of 2017, the
parties initiated discovery. Shortly thereafter, the Orrstown
Defendants communicated to SEPTA their stated intent to withhold
documents from production because they potentially contain
confidential supervisory information, which is protected from
disclosure under the limited bank examination privilege provided by
regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
and the Pennsylvania Department of Banking without the express
consent of the Regulators, thereby initiating a lengthy process
whereby SEPTA and the Orrstown Defendants sought to facilitate the
Regulators' review of the relevant documents in aid of the
Regulators' decision as to whether to assert the bank examination
privilege over potential CSI contained in the documents that were
the subject of SEPTA's document requests.
In connection with that process, the Court held a status conference
with the parties in August of 2017, resulting in the issuance of an
amended Case Management Order. In an effort to monitor the status
of the Regulators' review of the relevant documents, the Court held
another status conference with the parties in February of 2018, and
ultimately granted the parties' concurred-in motion to continue the
pending case management deadlines awaiting the outcome of the
Regulators' review of the relevant documents.
Thereafter, the parties filed a Joint Status Report with the Court
on May 2, 2018, reporting that the parties had participated in an
April 2018 conference call with the Regulators to discuss the
status of the Regulators' review of the potential CSI documents.
In that Joint Status Report, all parties agreed that the withheld
documents may be released to SEPTA only under the following
conditions: (1) should the Regulators consent to the production of
them to SEPTA, or (2) "in the event that the Regulators withhold
consent, the Court determines either that the privilege does not
apply, or the Court determines that good cause exists to override
the privilege." (Id. at 2.) Subsequent to the filing of that Joint
Status Report, the Court held a status conference with the parties
on May 10, 2018, and scheduled another status conference for Aug.
17, 2018.
Unsatisfied with the Regulators' process to review potential CSI
documents to determine whether to assert the bank examination
privilege over any of the documents sought by SEPTA from the
Orrstown Defendants and third parties, and immediately prior to the
scheduled status conference in August of 2018, SEPTA filed a motion
to compel seeking an order from the Court compelling production of
all documents under review by the Regulators. After briefing on
the motion, the Court denied SEPTA's motion by Memorandum and
Order.
Thereafter, SEPTA filed the instant Motion for Leave to File Third
Amended Complaint, along with the proposed Third Amended Complaint,
a supporting declaration, and a supporting brief. In its motion,
SEPTA seeks leave to file a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") that
reasserts claims previously dismissed by the Court's Dec. 7, 2016
Order against several individual Defendants associated with
Orrstown, as well as Orrstown's auditor, SEK, and the Underwriter
Defendants. In its motion, SEPTA maintains that discovery produced
in this case in late 2018 has revealed evidence supporting the
amendment of the SAC to include the previously dismissed Securities
Act claims against the Orrstown Defendants, several individual
Defendants, SEK, and the Underwriter Defendants. SEPTA's motion
also seeks to reassert the previously dismissed Exchange Act claims
against four individual Defendants associated with Orrstown and
SEK.
Orrstown filed a brief in opposition to SEPTA's motion, as did SEK,
and the Underwriter Defendants. After receiving permission from
the Court, SEPTA filed a consolidated reply brief. The motion has
been fully briefed.
Upon consideration of the arguments of the parties and the relevant
authorities cited to the Court, and noting that no party has cited
to the Court a controlling case addressing whether Rule 54(b) or
Rule 15(a) applies to a motion for leave to amend seeking to
reassert previously dismissed claims against previously dismissed
parties, Judge Kane is persuaded that it is appropriate to apply
the traditional Rule 15 analysis to SEPTA's motion, which does not
ask the Court to reconsider its analysis of the SAC as contained in
its December 7, 2016 Memorandum and Order, but seeks to assert new
factual allegations addressing previously-identified pleading
deficiencies.
Moreover, the Judge is persuaded that the two cases relied on by
the Defendants in support of their argument that the Rule 54(b)
standard should apply to SEPTA's motion are distinguishable from
the instant case. Accordingly, she will evaluate SEPTA's motion
for leave to amend under the traditional Rule 15(a) analysis. The
various Defendants argue that several grounds exist here to
overcome the general principle embodied in Rule 15, which provides
that leave to amend should be "freely" given; specifically, they
maintain that SEPTA's motion is (1) unduly delayed, (2) unduly
prejudicial, and (3) futile.
The Court is persuaded that SEPTA has not unduly delayed the filing
of its motion, where it asserts that the documents upon which the
TAC is based were produced to it only in November of 2018, after
the Orrstown Defendants agreed to produce documents predating 2010,
and in light of the volume of documents produced and the complexity
of the issues in the case. In addition, even though the case has
been pending for some time, the Court notes that in light of the
delay in these proceedings related to the FRB review of potential
CSI documents withheld from production to SEPTA, the case is
procedurally still in a relatively early stage.
The Court next turns to the issue of prejudice, which is the
"touchstone" regarding the potential denial of a motion for leave
to amend. The Court is persuaded that the Orrstown Defendants
cannot demonstrate that they will be unfairly disadvantaged by the
filing of the TAC, in light of SEPTA's representation that the
majority of the allegations in the TAC were derived from Orrstown's
own documents, which were revealed to SEPTA only much later through
discovery. The fact that the claims against Orrstown in the
proposed TAC are based largely on documents produced by Orrstown
weighs against any finding of prejudice. Ultimately, for all of
these reasons, the Court concludes that the Defendants have failed
to meet their burden to demonstrate that they would be unfairly
disadvantaged or deprived of the opportunity to present facts or
evidence, sufficient to justify denial of SEPTA's motion for leave
to amend.
The Court next addresses the Defendants' arguments regarding
futility. In light of its conclusion that, pursuant to Rule 54(b),
the previous dismissal of claims against the various Defendants did
not end the "action" against them as to the claims initially
brought by way of the FAC for purposes of the statutes of repose or
limitation, the Judge is persuaded that Rule 15(c)'s relation back
provision permitting an amended pleading asserting a new claim to
"relate back" to the date of the original pleading is inapplicable.
SEPTA seeks to reassert the same claims against the same parties
in the same action that was initiated by way of the FAC and,
despite the partial dismissal of claims, was not ended by way of
the Court's Dec. 7, 2016 Order. Accordingly, for all of these
reasons, the Court finds that futility does not provide a basis for
denial of SEPTA's motion for leave to amend.
For all of these reasons, Judge Kane granted SEPTA's Motion for
Leave to File Third Amended Complaint.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/vw26Qw from Leagle.com.
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by
Tiffany J. Cramer -- tiffanycramer@chimicles.com -- Chimicles
Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Timothy N. Mathews --
TimothyMathews@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP, Benjamin F. Johns -- benjohns@chimicles.com
--
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Kimberly M.
Donaldson Smith -- kimdonaldson@chimicles.com -- Chimicles
Schwartz
Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP & Nicholas E. Chimicles --
nick@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP.
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn,
Jr., Bradley S. Everly & JEFFREY W. EMBLY, Defendants, represented
by David J. Creagan, White and Williams, LLP, David E. Edwards,
White and Williams LLP & Justin K. Fortescue, White and Williams
LLP.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Amicus,
represented by George Michael Thiel, U.S. Attorney's Office.
PARSLEY ENERGY: Jagged Peak Energy Merger--Related Suits Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the six stockholder lawsuits, including putative
class actions, related to Parsley Energy, Inc.'s merger with Jagged
Peak Energy Inc. has voluntarily dismissed their cases following
the Company and Jagged Peak's filing of supplemented acquisition
proxy statement, according to Parsley Energy's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019.
Following the Company's and Jagged Peak's filing with the SEC of a
joint proxy statement/prospectus (the "Jagged Peak Acquisition
Proxy Statement") for the solicitation of proxies in connection
with the special meetings to be held in connection with the Jagged
Peak Acquisition, six purported stockholders of Jagged Peak (the
"Jagged Peak Plaintiffs") filed separate complaints (including
several putative class actions complaints, on behalf of themselves
and all owners of Jagged Peak's common stock, other than defendants
and related or affiliated persons) against Jagged Peak and the
directors of Jagged Peak. The six complaints (collectively
referred to as the "Stockholder Actions") are captioned as follows:
Eric Sabatini v. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-02114 (D. Del.); Jean-Pierre Enguehard v. Jagged Peak
Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 2019-cv-34328 (Distr. Ct., Denver,
CO) (the "Enguehard Action"); Kelly Small v. Jagged Peak Energy
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-10698 (S.D.N.Y.); Sherrie Wynne v.
Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03281 (D. Colo.);
Mark Prinzel v. Jagged Peak Energy Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-10886 (S.D.N.Y.); and Stephen Bushansky v. Jagged Peak
Energy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-3433 (D. Colo.).
The Stockholder Actions alleged that, among other things, the
Jagged Peak Acquisition Proxy Statement failed to disclose certain
allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 under the
Exchange Act. The Enguehard Action further alleged that the
directors of Jagged Peak failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties
in connection with the Jagged Peak Acquisition by purportedly
initiating a process to sell Jagged Peak in a transaction that
undervalues Jagged Peak. The complaints sought injunctive relief
enjoining the Jagged Peak Acquisition and damages and costs, among
other remedies.
On January 2, 2020, the Company and Jagged Peak each filed a
Current Report on Form 8-K that supplemented the Jagged Peak
Acquisition Proxy Statement with certain disclosures responsive to
allegations made by the Jagged Peak Plaintiffs. Following these
filings, all of the Stockholder Actions were voluntarily dismissed
by the Jagged Peak Plaintiffs.
Parsley Energy, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas company,
engages in the acquisition, development, production, exploration,
and sale of crude oil and natural gas properties in the Permian
Basin in West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico. The company was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Austin, Texas.
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Brown Suit Asks Home Confinement for Detainees
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY BROWN, MYLES HANNIGAN, and ANTHONY HALL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEAN MARLER, in his
capacity as Warden of the Federal Detention Center of Philadelphia,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01914-AB (E.D. Pa., April 15, 2020), seeks
temporary release to home confinement for the Plaintiffs and other
detainees at elevated risk from COVID-19.
The lawsuit raises an urgent challenge to the confinement of more
than 1,000 pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates at the Federal
Detention Center of Philadelphia.
The Petitioners contend that the facility has been slow to adopt
the basic life-saving precautions that have become familiar parts
of life beyond its walls. As of the filing of the lawsuit,
conditions in the FDC remain appallingly hospitable to the spread
of COVID-19, the Plaintiffs say. They add that Detainees are
crowded two per cell; staff members come and go with scant
screening for symptoms or personal protective equipment; and
conditions are unsanitary. Detainees have no meaningful ability to
take the most fundamental precautions recommended by federal,
state, and local officials and public-health experts: social
distancing, minimizing the number of people with whom one
physically interacts, frequent and thorough handwashing, and
regular disinfecting of commonly touched surfaces, according to the
complaint.
The Petitioners have, thus, filed this class action petition for
writs of habeas corpus and class complaint for declaratory and
injunctive relief.
FDC Philadelphia is a United States Federal prison in Center City,
Philadelphia.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
Mary M. McKenzie, Esq.
Benjamin D. Geffen, Esq.
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER
1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 802
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: 215-627-7100
E-mail: mmckenzie@pubintlaw.org
bgeffen@pubintlaw.org
- and -
Jim Davy, Esq.
2362 E. Harold Street
Philadelphia, PA 19125
Telephone: 609-273-5008
E-mail: jimdavy@gmail.com
- and -
Linda Dale Hoffa, Esq.
Margaret Spitzer Persico, Esq.
DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
1500 Market St., Suite 3500E
Philadelphia, PA 19102-2101
Telephone: 215-275-7000
Facsimile: 215-575-7200
E-mail: lhoffa@dilworthlaw.com
PICK & PACK: Saavedra Sues to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Saavedra, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. PICK & PACK PRODUCE INC., (D/B/A LYDIG PICK & PACK)
YOON JAI LEE, Case No. 1:20-cv-03326 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly works for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving
appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that they
worked. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants also failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping as required by the FLSA and the NYLL.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants packing and cleaning
fruit at their Bronx Location.
The Defendants operate a produce company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 203-2417
Website: www.FightForUrRights.com
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit Trial in April 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial date for the class action suit styled, In re Broiler Chicken
Antitrust Litigation, is scheduled for April 4, 2022, according to
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 29, 2019.
Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of
purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against PPC and 13 other producers by and on behalf of direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws.
The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an
alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase
prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the
present. The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated
amended complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on
behalf of distinct groups of indirect purchasers.
Between December 8, 2017 and October 22, 2019, 32 individual direct
action complaints (Affiliated Foods, Inc., et al. v. Claxton
Poultry Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08850; Sysco Corp. v.
Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00700; U.S. Foods Inc.
v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00702; Action Meat
Distributors, Inc., et al. v. Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-03471; Jetro Holdings, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04000; Associated Grocers of the South,
Inc., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-4616;
The Kroger Co., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-04534; Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05351; Samuels as Trustee In Bankruptcy for
Central Grocers, Inc. et al., v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a
Claxton Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05341; W. Lee
Flowers & Company, Inc. v. Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton
Poultry Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05345; BJ's Wholesale
Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05877;
United Supermarkets LLC, et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-06693; Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Koch
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06316 (transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on September 17,
2018, following Defendants' successful motion to transfer);
Shamrock Foods Company, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-7284; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Koch Foods,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00245; Quirch Foods, LLC, f/k/a
Quirch Foods Co. v. Koch Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-08511; Sherwood Food Distributors, L.L.C., et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00354, Hooters of America,
LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00390, Darden
Restaurants, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00530; Associated Grocers, Inc., et al. v. Norman W. Fries,
Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00638;
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01283; Conagra Brands, Inc., et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02190, Giant Eagle, Inc. v.
Norman W. Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-02758; Save Mart Supermarkets v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02805; Walmart Inc., et al. v. Pilgrim's
Pride Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03915 (transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on
June 11, 2019, following Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to transfer);
Services Group of America, Inc. v. Tyson Food, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-04194; Restaurants of America, Inc., et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-04824; Anaheim Wings, d/b/a Hooters
of Anaheim, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-05229;
Amigos Meat Distributors, LP, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al.,
No. 19-cv-05424; PJ Food Service, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et
al., No. 19-cv-6141; The Golub Corporation, et al. v. Norman W.
Fries, Inc., d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms, et al., Case No.
19-cv-06955; and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Koch Foods, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01605 (transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico)) were filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by individual
direct purchaser entities naming PPC as a defendant, the
allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action
complaints. The Court has ordered the parties to coordinate
scheduling of the direct action complaints with the class
complaints with any necessary modifications to reflect time of
filing. Discovery will be consolidated.
On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to intervene and stay
discovery in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation for a
period of six months. Following a hearing on June 27, 2019, on
June 28, 2019, the Court granted the government's motion to
intervene, ordering a limited stay first until September 27, 2019,
and then, following a subsequent request for an extension by the
DOJ, to June 27, 2020.
On July 1, 2019, the DOJ issued a subpoena to PPC in connection
with its investigation. PPC is currently in the process of
complying with the subpoena.
On December 18, 2019, the Court reset the date for the lifting of
the stay to March 31, 2020.
On January 29, 2020, the Court issued a scheduling order through
trial, which contemplates class certification briefing and related
expert reports proceeding from June 18, 2020 to November 25, 2020,
the close of all merits fact discovery on December 18, 2020, and
summary judgment briefing and related expert reports proceeding
from January 15, 2021 to August 10, 2021. The Court has set a
trial date of April 4, 2022.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Pending in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation continues to face an Oklahoma lawsuit
over alleged price-fixing of broiler chicken grower, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019.
On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler
chicken farmers was brought against PPC and four other producers in
the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging, among other things, a
conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress
the price paid to growers. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act and seek, among
other relief, treble damages. The complaint was consolidated with
a subsequently filed consolidated amended class action complaint
styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No.
CIV-17-033-RJS (the "Grower Litigation"). The defendants
(including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on September 9, 2017. The Court initially held oral
argument on January 19, 2018, during which it considered and
granted only certain other defendants' motions challenging
jurisdiction. Oral argument on the remaining pending motions in
the Oklahoma court occurred on April 20, 2018.
In addition, on March 12, 2018, the Northern District of Texas,
Fort Worth Division ("Bankruptcy Court") enjoined the plaintiffs
from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against PPC
because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate the
confirmation order relating to PPC's bankruptcy proceedings in 2008
and 2009. Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order
bars any claims against PPC based on conduct occurring before
December 28, 2009.
On March 13, 2018, PPC notified the trial court of the Bankruptcy
Court's injunction.
On January 6, 2020, the Court held a motion hearing and denied the
pending Rule 12 motion and lifted the stay on discovery. The Court
also set a briefing schedule for the plaintiffs to file a motion
seeking leave to amend their complaint in light of the Bankruptcy
Court's injunction. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend was due
on January 27, 2020, and Defendants' response was due on February
18, 2020. A status conference was set for April 6, 2020.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Awaiting 2nd Amended Complaint in "Hogan"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 29, 2019, that Patrick Hogan has not yet filed a Second
Amended Complaint in his class action suit.
On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and
a putative class of persons who purchased shares of PPC's stock
between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against PPC and its named executive officers. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that PPC's SEC filings contained
statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by
PPC's failure to disclose that (1) PPC colluded with several of its
industry peers to fix prices in the broiler-chicken market as
alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, (2) its
conduct constituted a violation of federal antitrust laws, (3)
PPC's revenues during the class period were the result of illegal
conduct and (4) that PPC lacked effective internal control over
financial reporting. The complaint also states that PPC's industry
was anticompetitive and seeks compensatory damages.
On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George
James Fuller, as lead plaintiff.
On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17,
2017. PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12,
2017, and the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC
and the other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017.
On March 14, 2018, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint
without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the
other defendants.
On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the
Court's decision and for permission to file a Second Amended
Complaint. PPC and the other defendants filed a response to the
plaintiff's motion on April 25, 2018.
On November 19, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint.
The Company said, "As of the date of these financial statements,
the plaintiff has not yet filed a Second Amended Complaint."
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Faces Consolidated Plant Workers Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation continues to face an amended complaint
in the consolidated class action suit representing a nationwide
class of processing plant production and maintenance workers,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 29, 2019.
Between August 30, 2019 and October 16, 2019, four purported class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland against PPC and a number of other chicken
producers, as well as WMS (Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company) and Agri
Stats. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of
processing plant production and maintenance workers ("Plant
Workers"). They allege that the defendants conspired to fix and
depress the compensation paid to Plant Workers in violation of the
Sherman Act and seek damages from January 1, 2009 to the present.
The four cases are Jien v. Perdue Farms, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-2521;
Earnest v. Perdue Farms, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-02680;
Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 19-cv-02960; and
Avila v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-cv-03018
(together, the "Wages Litigation").
On November 12, 2019, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
four cases for pretrial purposes. The defendants (including PPC)
jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on November 22,
2019. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs informed the defendants
and the Court they would be amending their complaint, which they
did on December 20, 2019. The consolidated amended complaint
asserts largely similar allegations to the pleadings in the
consolidated complaint extended to include more class members and
turkey processors as well as chicken. The defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint were due on March 2,
2020, with oppositions due on April 24, 2020 and replies on May 21,
2020.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PREMIERE CREDIT: Faces Staniland FDCPA Class Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premiere Credit of
North America, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as TRACY A.
STANILAND, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
PREMIERE CREDIT OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; STEVEN TODD STURGEON; SARAH
SIPE DEMOSS; PROGRESS ONE FINANCIAL, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04351-CCC-MF (D.N.J., April 15, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
Premiere Credit offers financial services. The Company provides
accounts receivable management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Ave., Ste. 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Still Defends 2 Antitrust Class Action Complaints
------------------------------------------------------------------
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that it intends to "vigorously" defend itself
against all claims in two putative class action suits over alleged
violations of federal antitrust law.
In March and April of 2019, three putative class action complaints
were filed against National Association of Realtors ("NAR"),
Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc, RE/MAX
Holdings, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. The first was filed on
March 6, 2019, by plaintiff Christopher Moehrl in the Northern
District of Illinois. The second was filed on April 15, 2019, by
plaintiff Sawbill Strategies, Inc., also in the Northern District
of Illinois. These two actions have now been consolidated. A
third action was filed by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and four other
individual plaintiffs in the Western District of Missouri.
The complaints (collectively "Moehrl/Sitzer suits") make
substantially similar allegations and seek substantially similar
relief. The plaintiffs allege that a NAR rule requires brokers to
make a blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation
when listing a property, resulting in inflated costs to sellers in
violation of federal antitrust law. They further allege that
certain defendants use their agreements with franchisees to require
adherence to the NAR rule in violation of federal antitrust law.
Amended complaints add allegations regarding buyer steering and
non-disclosure of buyer-broker compensation to the buyer.
Additionally, plaintiffs in the action filed by Sitzer et al allege
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. By
agreement, RE/MAX, LLC was substituted for RE/MAX Holdings as
defendant in the actions. Among other requested relief, plaintiffs
seek damages against the defendants and an injunction enjoining
defendants from requiring sellers to pay the buyer broker.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims.
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. is one of the world's leading franchisors in
the real estate industry, franchising real estate brokerages
globally under the RE/MAX(R) brand, and mortgage brokerages within
the U.S. under the Motto Mortgage(R) brand. RE/MAX is a global
franchisor of real estate brokerage services with more than 125,000
agents operating in over 110 countries and territories. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.
RELIASTAR LIFE: Advance Trust's COI Litigation Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that it will "vigorously" defend the cost of
insurance litigation styled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services,
LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company (USDC District of
Minnesota, No. 1:18-cv-02863) (filed October 5, 2018).
The litigation is a putative class action in which Plaintiff
alleges that the Company's universal life insurance policies only
permitted the Company to rely upon the policyholders' expected
future mortality experience to establish the cost of insurance, and
that as projected mortality experience improved, the policy
language required the Company to decrease the cost of insurance.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company did not decrease the cost of
insurance as required, thereby breaching its contract with its
policyholders, and seeks class certification. The Company denies
the allegations in the complaint, believes the complaint to be
without merit, and will defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
RITE AID: Monmouth County Files Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RITE AID CORPORATION,
et al. The case is styled as COUNTY OF MONMOUTH, Diane Scavello,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RITE
AID CORPORATION, RITE AID HDQTRS. CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-02024-KSM
(E.D. Pa., April 27, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Rite Aid Corporation operates a retail drugstore chain in various
states and the District of Columbia. The Company sells prescription
drugs, as well as other products such as nonprescription
medications, health and beauty aids, and cosmetics.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 500
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
RP ON-SITE LLC: Brown Sues in E.D. Virginia Over FCRA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RP On-Site, LLC. The
case is styled as Terry Brown, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated individuals v. RP On-Site, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00482-AJT-JFA (E.D. Va., April 27, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
RP ON-SITE LLC is in the Computer Related Services, N.E.C. industry
in Richardson, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 424-7576
Fax: (703) 591-0167
Email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
RSCR CALIFORNIA: Pending Class Certification Bid Declared Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTINE ANDERSON,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; RES-CARE CALIFORNIA, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA AS RCCA SERVICES, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:18-cv-02474-JAK-KK (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order declaring as moot
a pending motion for class certification.
Based on a review of the Parties' Joint Status Report, the Court
amended its Scheduling Order as follows:
May 15, 2020: Deadline for Plaintiff to serve an updated
expert report and file updated motion for
class certification.
June 30, 2020: Deadline for Defendant to depose N/A named
Plaintiff and serve its expert report.
July 15, 2020: Response to motion for class certification.
Aug. 31, 2020: Reply to motion for class certification.
Dec. 31, 2020: Last day to participate in a settlement
conference/mediation.
Jan. 25, 2021: Hearing on motion for class certification.
Jan. 25, 2021: Post Mediation Status Conference and Status
Conference on deadlines for further nonexpert
and expert discovery and filing of motions
RSCR is an intermediate care facility for tyhe mentally retarded in
Louisville, Kentucky.[CC]
RUSH STREET: Faces Stewart Wage and Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Branden P. Stewart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RUSH STREET GAMING, LLC and MIDWEST GAMING &
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC d/b/a RIVERS CASINO, Case No. 1:20-cv-02566
(N.D. Ill., April 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The case concerns two types of wage and hour violations: (i) the
Defendants failed to pay minimum wage to tipped employees in
compliance with the FLSA, by paying a sub-minimum direct cash wage
and claiming a tip credit without providing notice of the
provisions of the FLSA; and (ii) the Defendants directly deducted
the cost of dry cleaning employer-required uniforms from the wages
of their employees in violation of the FLSA and the IMWL.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an employee at Rivers
Casino located in Des Plaines, Illinois, as a table games dealer
and dual rate supervisor.
Rush Street operates a hub and spoke employment structure whereby,
Rush Street, at the operational center of the wheel, has spokes
leading out to each of its individual casino subsidiaries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: 312-419-1025
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: 816-714-7101
Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
A Professional Corporation
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068-1170
Phone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com
SABER HEALTHCARE: Bartels Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as EDWARD BARTELS, Administrator
of the ESTATE OF JEANNE T. BARTELS, and JOSEPH J. PFOHL C, Executor
of the Estate of Bernice C. Pfohl, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, SABER
HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC, FRANKLIN OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a FRANKLIN
MANOR ASSISTED LIVING CENTER, SMITHFIELD EAST HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC
d/b/a GABRIEL MANOR ASSISTED LIVING CENTER, and QUEEN CITY AL
HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a THE CROSSINGS AT STEELE CREEK, Case No.
5:16-cv-00283 (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all persons who were private pay residents at Saber's
Special Care Units at Franklin Manor Assisted Living
Center, Gabriel Manor Assisted Living Center, and/or The
Crossings at Steele Creek through the final disposition of
this action";
Excluded from the class are: (a) any judge or magistrate
presiding over this action and members of their immediate
families; (b) any Defendant and its legal representatives;
and (c) all persons who properly execute and file a timely
request for exclusion from the Classes.
2. designating Edward Bartels, Administrator of the Estate of
Jeanne T. Bartels, and Joseph J. Pfohl, Executor of the
Estate of Bernice C. Pfohl as Representative Plaintiffs
for the Class;
3. appointing Whitfield Bryson, LLP and Gugenheim Law
Offices, P.C. as Class Counsel.
Saber Healthcare operates as a skilled nursing facility. The
company provides skilled nursing services, therapy services,
behavioral services, psychological and chemical dependency
services. Saber Healthcare offers ongoing assessments, staff
training and continuing education.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
Andrew D. Hathaway, Esq.
Jeremy R. Williams, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
900 West Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: 919-600-5000
E-mail: Matt@whitfieldbryson.com
Drew@whitfieldbryson.com
Jeremy@whitfieldbryson.com
- and -
Stephen J. Gugenheim, Esq.
GUGENHEIM LAW OFFICES, P.C.
118 St. Mary's St.
Raleigh, NC 27605
Telephone: 919-836-5551
Facsimile: 919-836-5550
E-mail: Steve@gugenheimlaw.com
SECURITY LIFE: Still Faces Advance Trust COI Class Suit in Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, 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 continues to face the cost of insurance
litigation styled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v.
Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No.
1:18-cv-01897) (filed July 26, 2018).
This litigation is a putative class action in which Plaintiff
alleges that two specific types of universal life insurance
policies only permitted the Company to rely upon the policyholder's
expected future mortality experience to establish and increase the
cost of insurance, but the Company instead relied upon other,
non-disclosed factors not only in the administration of the
policies over time, but also in the decision to increase insurance
costs beginning in approximately October 2015.
Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract and seeks class
certification. The Company denies the allegations in the
complaint, believes the complaint to be without merit, and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
SEI INVESTMENTS: Awaits Court's Okay over Stevens Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company 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 class action suit
initiated by Gordon Stevens is awaiting the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's decision regarding the
approval of a settlement agreement.
On September 28, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by Gordon Stevens, individually and as the
representative of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the
SEI Capital Accumulation Plan (the "Plan") naming the Company and
its affiliated and/or related entities SEI Investments Management
Corporation, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Design Committee, SEI
Capital Accumulation Plan Investment Committee, SEI Capital
Accumulation Plan Administration Committee, and John Does 1-30 as
defendants (the "Stevens Complaint").
The Stevens Compliant seeks unspecified damages for defendants'
breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to selecting
and monitoring the Plan's investment options and by retaining
affiliated investment products in the Plan.
Although SEI believes its defenses against the plaintiff's
allegations were valid, the Company agreed to settle this matter in
the very early stages of the litigation in order to avoid the high
cost of protracted class-action litigation and internal
distractions such cases bring.
The written settlement agreement was submitted to the Court on July
26, 2019, and is a matter of public record. A Preliminary Approval
Order approving the settlement agreement was issued by the Court.
A fairness hearing to approve the settlement agreement was held on
December 18, 2019. The parties are currently waiting for the
Court's decision regarding the approval of the settlement
agreement.
The Company said it expects the financial impact of the settlement
agreement to be immaterial.
SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth
management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management,
asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions,
financial services, and investment advisory services to its
clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based
in Oaks, Pennsylvania.
SEI INVESTMENTS: Still Defends Stanford Trust-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company and its subsidiary continue to face several
lawsuits related to the role of SEI Private Trust Company in
providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company, according
to SEI Investments' Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts;
four of the cases also name SPTC as a defendant. The underlying
allegations in all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in
providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The
complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in some manner in
the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford
International Bank so as to be a "seller" of the certificates of
deposit for purposes of primary liability under the Louisiana
Securities Law or so as to be secondarily liable under that statute
for sales of certificates of deposit made by Stanford Trust
Company. Two of the actions also include claims for violations of
the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy, and a third
also asserts claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law,
negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of
the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy.
The procedural status of the seven cases varies. The Lillie case,
filed originally in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish
of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class action and is
procedurally the most advanced of the cases. SEI and SPTC filed
exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing claims
under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and permitting the
claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to go forward.
On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana.
On August 7, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the matter to the Northern District of Texas where MDL
2099, In re: Stanford Entities Securities Litigation ("the Stanford
MDL"), is pending.
On September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and
SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under
Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section
714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations
pled by plaintiffs.
On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the
Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the only claims of
plaintiffs remaining in Lillie are plaintiffs' claims for secondary
liability against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the
Louisiana Securities Law.
On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being
"all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed
Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". Notice
of the pendency of the class action was mailed to potential class
members on October 4, 2016.
On December 1, 2016, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the
Lillie class filed a complaint against SEI and SPTC in the United
States District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana ("Ahders
Complaint"), alleging claims essentially the same as those in
Lillie.
In January 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the Ahders proceeding to the Northern District of Texas
and the Stanford MDL. During February 2017, SEI and SPTC filed
their response to the Ahders Complaint, and in March 2017 the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved the
stipulated dismissal of all claims in this Complaint predicated on
Section 712(D) or Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law.
In both cases, as a result of the proceedings in the Northern
District of Texas, only the plaintiffs' secondary liability claims
under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law remain.
Limited discovery and motions practice have occurred, including SEI
and SPTC's filing of a dispositive summary judgment motion in the
Lillie proceeding.
On January 31, 2019, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
remanded the Lillie and Ahders proceedings to the Middle District
of Louisiana.
On July 9, 2019, the District Court issued an order granting SEI's
Summary Judgment Motion to dismiss the remaining Section 714(B)
claim in the Lillie proceeding and denying Plaintiffs' Motion for
Continuance of SEI and SPTC's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant
to Rule 56(d).
On July 16, 2019, SEI and SPTC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
pursuant to Rule 56(d) in the Ahders proceeding to have the
remaining Section 714(B) claim dismissed.
On July 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration
and/or New Trial as to the July 9, 2019 Ruling and Order (ECF 146)
by the Honorable Brian A. Jackson denying a continuance of SEI's
Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d) in the Lillie
proceeding. The Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion and entered a
Final Judgment in favor of SEI and SPTC on August 15, 2019.
On August 27, 2019, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the
District Court's dismissal of the Lillie matter.
On November 20, 2019, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Motion in
Support of the Notice of Appeal with the Fifth Circuit in the
Lillie matter.
On January 17, 2020, SEI and SPTC timely filed their brief in
opposition to the Plaintiffs-Appellants' motion for appeal in the
Lillie Matter.
On January 24, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting
SEI's Summary Judgment Motion to dismiss the remaining Section
714(B) claim in the Adhers proceeding.
On February 7, 2020, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their reply brief
with the Fifth Circuit in the Lillie matter.
Another case, filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Ascension, also was removed to federal court and
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL. The schedule
for responding to that Complaint has not yet been established.
Two additional cases remain in the Parish of East Baton Rouge.
Plaintiffs filed petitions in 2010 and have granted SEI and SPTC
indefinite extensions to respond. No material activity has taken
place since.
In two additional cases, filed in East Baton Rouge and brought by
the same counsel who filed the Lillie action, virtually all of the
litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subject matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA). The matters were removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and
consolidated. The court then dismissed the action under SLUSA.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and
the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Court of
Appeals judgment on February 26, 2014. The matters were remanded
to state court and no material activity has taken place since that
date.
SEI Investments said, "While the outcome of this litigation remains
uncertain, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of uncertainty in the make-up of the Lillie class, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the relative lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits."
SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth
management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management,
asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions,
financial services, and investment advisory services to its
clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based
in Oaks, Pennsylvania.
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Agar Suit vs. SNI Moves into Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled, Agar v. Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC, has now
moved into discovery phase after an unsuccessful early mediation in
the case in December 2019, according to Sensient Technologies
Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
On March 29, 2019, Calvin Agar (Agar), a former employee, filed a
Class Action Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court against
Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI).
On May 22, 2019, Agar filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint
against SNI (the Complaint). Agar alleges that SNI improperly
reported overtime pay on employees' wage statements, in violation
of the California Labor Code. The Complaint alleges two causes of
action, and both concern the wage statements.
The Complaint does not allege that SNI failed to pay any overtime
due to Agar or any of the putative class or group members. The
Complaint merely challenges the manner in which SNI has reported
overtime pay on its wage statements.
SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative
class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not
experienced any harm. SNI further maintains that the format of its
wage statements does not violate the requirements of state law or
any specific guidance from California decisional law, the
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or the
California Labor Commissioner's Office. Finally, SNI contends that
certain of the state law claims are subject to mandatory individual
arbitration.
SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on
July 10, 2019. The parties participated in an early mediation in
the case in December 2019, which was not successful. The case will
now move into the discovery phase. SNI continues to evaluate the
developing legal authority on this issue. SNI intends to
vigorously defend its interests, absent a reasonable resolution.
Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7,
1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and
fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the
world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other
specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Appeal in Lewis Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company 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 case styled, Mary
Lewis v. Lead Industries Association, et al., are awaiting the
decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois on the defendants'
appeal.
In Mary Lewis v. Lead Industries Association, et al. pending in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, parents seek to recover the
cost of their children's blood lead testing against the Company and
three other defendants that made (or whose alleged corporate
predecessors made) white lead pigments. The Circuit Court has
certified a statewide class and a Chicago subclass of parents or
legal guardians of children who lived in high-risk zip codes
identified by the Illinois Department of Health and who were
screened for lead toxicity between August 1995 and February 2008.
Excluded from the class are those parents or guardians who have
incurred no expense, liability or obligation to pay for the cost of
their children's blood lead testing.
In 2017, the Company and other defendants moved for summary
judgment on the grounds that the three named plaintiffs have not
paid and have no obligation or liability to pay for their
children's blood lead testing because Medicaid paid for the
children of two plaintiffs and private insurance paid for the third
plaintiff without any evidence of a co-pay or deductible. The
Circuit Court granted the motion, but on September 7, 2018, the
Appellate Court reversed with respect to the two plaintiffs for
whom Medicaid paid for their children's testing. Defendants filed
a petition with the Supreme Court of Illinois for discretionary
review. By order entered January 31, 2019, that court allowed
defendants' petition for leave to appeal. The defendants filed
their opening brief in the Supreme Court of Illinois on April 11,
2019, to which the plaintiffs filed a response brief on June 17,
2019. The defendants filed their reply brief on July 15, 2019.
Oral argument was held before the Supreme Court of Illinois on
November 14, 2019, and the parties are awaiting the decision.
The Sherwin-Williams Company develops, manufactures, distributes,
and sells paints, coatings, and related products to professional,
industrial, commercial, and retail customers. It was founded in
1866 and is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.
SIMON BROTHERS: Court Conditionally Certifies Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GEORGE GREGG v. SIMON
BROTHERS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-CV-513 (W.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Robert J. Jonker entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective
action for the following collective action group:
"all hourly-paid intrastate drivers and mechanics that
work/worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks
within the last three years for Defendants, but were not
compensated at one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all overtime hours worked";
2. approving the Plaintiff's proposed Class Notice and
proposed Consent to join the collective action;
3. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send notice, in the
form provided for in ECF No. 27-2, to all individuals
whose names appear on the list produced by Defendant's
counsel by U.S. mail and text message.
4. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send a post card
reminder notice via mail and text message to putative
class members at the half-way point in the notice period;
5. authorizing the putative class members to electronically
sign and return the Consent to Join the Collective Action
form; and
6. directing the Defendant to disclose to Plaintiff the
names, position held, last known address, dates of
employment, and cell phone number in electronic and
importable format, within 14 days of the date of this
Order.
Simon Brothers specializes in diesel service and repair, pool water
delivery and grain Transportation.[CC]
STEWARD MELBOURNE: Hauser Appeals M.D. Florida Order to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lawrence Hauser filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit styled Lawrence Hauser v. Steward Melbourne Hospital,
et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-01150-CEM-EJK, in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
alleges that the Defendants improperly charged emergency room
facility fees to individuals, who were provided emergency care
after presenting at an emergency room facility operated by the
Defendants or one of their affiliates since May 1, 2017.
The appellate case is captioned as Lawrence Hauser v. Steward
Melbourne Hospital, et al., Case No. 20-11377, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LAWRENCE HAUSER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Barry L. Kramer, Esq.
BARRY L. KRAMER LAW OFFICE
9550 S Eastern Ave., Ste. 253
Las Vegas, NV 89123
Telephone: (702) 778-6090
- and -
Jared Michael Lee, Esq.
JACKSON LEE, PA
1981 Longwood Lake Mary Rd., Ste. 1001
Longwood, FL 32750
Telephone: (407) 477-4401
Facsimile: (407) 477-4949
Email: jared@jacksonleepa.com
service@jacksonleepa.com
Defendants-Appellees STEWARD MELBOURNE HOSPITAL, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and STEWARD HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, are represented
by:
Christopher MacNeil Murphy, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP
444 W Lake St., Ste. 4000
Chicago, IL 60606-0029
Telephone: (312) 984-6307
- and -
Kamal Sleiman, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP
333 Se 2nd Ave., Ste. 4500
Miami, FL 33131-2184
Telephone: (305) 329-4420
Facsimile: (305) 675-8403
Email: ksleiman@mwe.com
TDL GROUP: Suit over Canadian Competition Act Breaches Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
The TDL Group Corp. continues to defend itself against a class
action complaint initiated by Samir Latifi over alleged violations
of the Canadian Competition Act, according to Restaurant Brands
International Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
In July 2019, a class action complaint was filed against The TDL
Group Corp. ("TDL") in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by
Samir Latifi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated. The complaint alleges that TDL violated the Canadian
Competition Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and
no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Tim
Hortons franchisees are required to sign. The plaintiff seeks
damages and restitution, on behalf of himself and other members of
the class.
Restaurant Brands International Inc. is the sole general partner of
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership
("Partnership"), which is the indirect parent of The TDL Group
Corp. ("Tim Hortons"), Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("Burger King")
and Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. ("Popeyes"). The Company is
based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
TEVA PHARMA: Appeal in Aggrenox(R) Antitrust Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
In the antitrust case related to Aggrenox(R), the appeal of the end
payer plaintiffs who opted out of a court-approved settlement
remains pending in the Second Circuit, according to Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
Since November 2013, numerous lawsuits have been filed in various
federal courts by purported classes of end payers for, and direct
purchasers of, Aggrenox(R) (dipyridamole/aspirin tablets) against
Boehringer Ingelheim ("BI"), the innovator, and several Teva
subsidiaries. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
settlement agreement between BI and Barr entered into in August
2008 violated the antitrust laws. A multidistrict litigation has
been established in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.
On April 11, 2017, the Orange County District Attorney filed a
complaint for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law
based on the Aggrenox(R) patent litigation settlement. Teva has
settled with the putative classes of direct purchasers and end
payers, as well as with the opt-out direct purchaser plaintiffs,
and with two of the opt-out end payer plaintiffs. A provision with
respect to the settlements was included in the financial statements
and settlement amounts were subsequently paid in full.
The district court overruled certain objections to the end payer
settlement, including objections made by the Orange County District
Attorney, and approved the settlement. The District Attorney
subsequently appealed the court's approval to the Second Circuit,
but that appeal was dismissed in December 2019 and the District
Attorney also subsequently dismissed the April 2017. Opt-outs from
the end payer class also appealed certain aspects of the court's
approval order to the Second Circuit and that appeal remains
pending.
Annual sales of Aggrenox(R) were approximately US$340 million at
the time of the settlement and approximately US$455 million at the
time Teva launched its authorized generic version of Aggrenox(R) in
July 2015.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMA: Class Suit Over Lamictal Patent Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action related
to the settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine
(generic Lamictal(R) ) entered into in February 2005 is still
stayed pending the outcome of an appeal in the case.
The Company said, "In February 2012, two purported classes of
direct-purchaser plaintiffs sued GSK and Teva in New Jersey federal
court for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection
with their settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine
(generic Lamictal(R) ) entered into in February 2005. The
plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed
generic entry and seek unspecified damages. In December 2012, the
court dismissed the case, but in June 2015, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. In December 2018, the court granted the
direct-purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On
March 18, 2019, the appeals court granted the defendants' petition
for immediate appellate review and the district court has stayed
the litigation pending the outcome of the appeal. Annual sales of
Lamictal(R) were approximately US$950 million at the time of the
settlement and approximately US$2.3 billion at the time Teva
launched its generic version of Lamictal(R) in July 2008."
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMA: Niaspan Indirect Buyers' Bid for Class Status Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has yet to rule on the
indirect purchasers' pending motion for class certification in the
antitrust suit related to Niaspan(R) (extended release niacin).
In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of, and end
payers for, Niaspan(R) (extended release niacin) sued Teva and
Abbott for violating the antitrust laws by entering into a
settlement agreement in April 2005 to resolve patent litigation
over the product. A multidistrict litigation has been established
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Throughout 2015 and in January 2016, several
individual direct purchaser opt-out plaintiffs filed complaints
with allegations nearly identical to those of the direct purchaser
class and, in August 2019, the district court certified the
direct-purchaser class, although the court has yet to rule on the
indirect purchasers' pending motion for class certification.
In October 2016, the District Attorney for Orange County,
California, filed a similar complaint, which has since been
amended, in California state court, alleging violations of state
law. Defendants moved to strike the District Attorney's claims for
restitution and civil penalties to the extent not limited to
alleged activity occurring in Orange County. The Superior Court
denied that motion. The Court of Appeal subsequently reversed the
decision and review of the Appellate Court decision is now pending
before the California Supreme Court. Annual sales of Niaspan(R)
were approximately US$416 million at the time of the settlement and
approximately US$1.1 billion at the time Teva launched its generic
version of Niaspan(R) in September 2013.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMA: Settlement in Provigil(R) Suit Awaits Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Company's settlement
agreement with the State of California in a class action suit
related to Provigil(R) is pending final court approval.
In April 2006, certain subsidiaries of Teva were named in a class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The case alleges that the settlement
agreements entered into between Cephalon, Inc., now a Teva
subsidiary ("Cephalon"), and various generic pharmaceutical
companies in late 2005 and early 2006 to resolve patent litigation
involving certain finished modafinil products (marketed as
PROVIGIL(R)) were unlawful because they had the effect of excluding
generic competition. The case also alleges that Cephalon
improperly asserted its PROVIGIL patent against the generic
pharmaceutical companies. The first lawsuit was filed by a
purported class of direct purchasers. Similar complaints were also
filed by a purported class of indirect purchasers, certain chain
pharmacies and by Apotex, Inc. (collectively, these cases are
referred to as the "Philadelphia Modafinil Action"). Separately,
Apotex challenged Cephalon's PROVIGIL patent and, in October 2011,
the court found the patent to be invalid and unenforceable based on
inequitable conduct. Teva has either settled or reached agreements
in principle to settle with all of the plaintiffs in the
Philadelphia Modafinil Action. Additionally, Cephalon and Teva
reached a settlement with 48 state attorneys general, which was
approved by the court on November 7, 2016, and on July 23, 2019,
reached a settlement with the State of California, which is pending
final court approval.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Pennsylvania MDL over Antitrust Matters
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to face a
multi-district litigation over antitrust matters in Pennsylvania
court, 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 on March 2, 2016, numerous complaints have been filed in
the United States on behalf of putative classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of several generic drug products, as well as
several individual direct and indirect purchaser opt-out
plaintiffs. These complaints, which allege that the defendants
engaged in conspiracies to fix prices and/or allocate market share
of generic products have been brought against various manufacturer
defendants, including Teva and Actavis. The plaintiffs generally
seek injunctive relief and damages under federal antitrust law, and
damages under various state laws.
On April 6, 2017, these cases were transferred to the Pennsylvania
MDL. Additional cases were transferred to that court and the
plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints on August 15,
2017.
On October 16, 2018, the court denied certain of the defendants'
motions to dismiss as to certain federal claims, and on February
15, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motions to dismiss as to certain state law claims.
On July 18, 2019, certain individual plaintiffs commenced a civil
action in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County against many of the defendants in the Pennsylvania MDL,
including Teva and Actavis, but no complaint has been filed and the
case has been placed in deferred status.
On November 13, 2019, several counties in New York commenced a
civil action against many of the defendants in the Pennsylvania
MDL, including Teva and Actavis, and the complaint has been
transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMA: Still Defends Venlafaxine-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to face lawsuits
over alleged violations of antitrust laws related to its settlement
of patent litigation involving extended release venlafaxine
(generic Effexor XR(R)) entered into in November 2005, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company said, "In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs
sued Wyeth and Teva for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in
connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving
extended release venlafaxine (generic Effexor XR(R)) entered into
in November 2005. The cases were filed by a purported class of
direct purchasers, by a purported class of indirect purchasers and
by certain chain pharmacies in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement
agreement between Wyeth and Teva unlawfully delayed generic entry.
In October 2014, the court granted Teva's motion to dismiss in the
direct purchaser cases, after which the parties agreed that the
court's reasoning applied equally to the indirect purchaser cases.
Plaintiffs appealed and, in August 2017, the Third Circuit reversed
the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings.
Annual sales of Effexor XR(R) were approximately US$2.6 billion at
the time of settlement and at the time Teva launched its generic
version of Effexor XR(R) in July 2010."
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Actions over Lidoderm Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to defend itself
against legal proceedings related to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine
transdermal patches), 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 November 2013, a putative class action was filed in Pennsylvania
federal court against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates,
alleging that Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. relating to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal
patches) violated the antitrust laws. Additional lawsuits
containing similar allegations followed on behalf of other classes
of putative direct purchaser and end-payer plaintiffs, as well as
retailers acting in their individual capacities, and those cases
were consolidated as a multidistrict litigation in federal court in
California.
On February 21, 2017, the court granted both the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' and the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motions for class
certification. Teva settled the multidistrict litigation with the
various plaintiff groups in the first quarter of 2018, a provision
was included in the financial statements and settlement amounts
were subsequently paid in full.
The FTC also filed suit to challenge the Lidoderm(R) settlement,
initially bringing antitrust claims against Watson, Endo and
Allergan in Pennsylvania federal court in March 2016. The FTC
later voluntarily dismissed those claims and refiled them (along
with a stipulated order for permanent injunction to settle its
claims against Endo) in the same California federal court in which
the private multidistrict litigation was pending.
On February 3, 2017, the State of California filed its own
complaint against Allergan and Watson, and that complaint was also
assigned to the California federal court presiding over the
multidistrict litigation.
On February 22, 2019, the FTC dismissed its claims against Actavis
and Allergan, in exchange for Teva's agreement to amend the
Modafinil Consent Decree.
On July 23, 2019, Teva and the State of California also reached a
settlement agreement.
On September 16, 2019, end-payers Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan filed their own lawsuit
against Watson, and other defendants, in Michigan state court.
That lawsuit was subsequently removed to federal court and remains
pending.
On January 24, 2020, the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit
against Teva and Watson in Mississippi state court, which also
remains pending.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Claims over Cinacalcet
---------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited continues to face antitrust
lawsuits related to a January 2019 settlement agreement resolving
patent litigation over cinacalcet (generic Sensipar(R)), 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 January 2019, generic manufacturer Cipla Limited filed a lawsuit
against Amgen in Delaware federal court, alleging, among other
things, that a January 2, 2019 settlement agreement between Amgen
and Teva, resolving patent litigation over cinacalcet (generic
Sensipar(R)), violated the antitrust laws.
In March 2019, Cipla Limited amended its complaint to name Teva as
an additional defendant, and putative classes of direct-purchaser
and end-payer plaintiffs have also filed antitrust lawsuits (which
have since been consolidated in federal court in Delaware) against
Amgen and Teva related to the January 2, 2019 settlement.
Both Cipla Limited and the putative class plaintiffs seek damages
and injunctive relief and the defendants moved to dismiss their
claims on October 15, 2019. Those motions remain pending.
Annual sales of Sensipar(R) in the United States were approximately
US$1.4 billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of
Sensipar(R) in December 2018, and at the time of the January 2,
2019 settlement.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMA: Still Faces Antitrust Class Suits over Intuniv Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that in the class actions
related to Shire's 2013 patent litigation settlement over ADHD drug
Intuniv(R) (guanfacine) matters, the indirect purchasers' petition
for immediate appellate review on their denied bid for class
certification remains pending while the various summary judgment
motions of the certified direct purchasers class are also pending.
Since November 2016, several putative indirect purchaser and direct
purchaser class actions were filed in federal courts in Wisconsin,
Massachusetts and Florida against Shire U.S., Inc. and Shire LLC
(collectively, "Shire"), Actavis and Teva, alleging that Shire's
2013 patent litigation settlement with Actavis related to the ADHD
drug Intuniv(R) (guanfacine) violated various state consumer
protection and antitrust laws. All cases are now in Massachusetts
federal court.
In August 2019, the court denied the indirect purchasers' motion
for class certification, and they filed a petition for immediate
appellate review, which remains pending.
In September 2019, the court granted the direct purchasers' motion
for class certification and the parties filed various summary
judgment motions, which remain pending.
Annual sales of Intuniv(R) were approximately US$335 million at
the time of the settlement and approximately US$327 million at
the time Actavis launched its generic version of Intuniv(R) in
2014.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TRANSUNION RENTAL: Hector Suit Moved From Virginia to Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KAILA HECTOR and WILLIAM
AIRD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00790
(Filed Jan. 21, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on April 27, 2020.
The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01794-JPB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge e J. P. Boulee.
The case is a consumer class action for damages, costs and
attorneys' fees brought against the Defendant based on its
widespread violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Defendant is a consumer reporting agency that compiles and
maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
Craig Marchiando, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
craig@clalegal.com
- and -
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
Casey S. Nash, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
Joseph C. Hashmall , Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
jhashmall@bm.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Albert E. Hartmann, Esq.
Travis Aaron Sabalewski, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
10 S. Wacker Dr., 40th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 207-2821
Facsimile: (312) 207-6400
E-mail: ahartmann@reedsmith.com
tsabalewski@reedsmith.com
TRISTATE LOGISTICS: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Bryant FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs SAMANTHA SANDERS, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling issued in the lawsuit styled Jayce Bryant, et al. v.
Tristate Logistics of Arizona, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01552-SMB,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a
courier/warehouse worker from March 2016 through July 2016.
The appellate case is captioned as Jayce Bryant, et al. v. Tristate
Logistics of Arizona, et al., Case No. 20-15725, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Randy Hagelback, Chris Kooiman, Donald Kooiman
and Samantha Sanders' Mediation Questionnaire is due on
April 28, 2020;
-- Appellants Randy Hagelback, Chris Kooiman, Donald Kooiman
and Samantha Sanders' opening brief is due on June 15,
2020;
-- Appellees Bon Air Trust, C&A Holdings LLC, Jorge, Carlos
Jorge, Tristate Logistics LLC, Tristate Logistics of
Arizona LLC and Tristate Logistics of Nevada LLC's
answering brief is due on July 14, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants, SAMANTHA SANDERS, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented
by:
Jason Barrat, Esq.
Michael Zoldan, Esq.
ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
14500 N Northsight Blvd., Suite 213
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Telephone: (480) 442-3410
– and –
Clifford Phillip Bendau, II, Esq.
THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
Defendants-Appellees TRISTATE LOGISTICS OF ARIZONA LLC, an Arizona
Limited Liability Company, et al., are represented by:
Keith Anson Call, Esq.
SNOW CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU
10 Exchange Place
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 322-9144
UMPQUA BANK: Wrongfully Charges OD and NSF Fees, Hayes Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHANTE HAYES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. UMPQUA BANK and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
3:20-cv-00684-AC (D. Ore. April 27, 2020), alleges that Umpqua
wrongfully charged the Plaintiff and the proposed class members
overdraft fees and non-sufficient funds fees.
The class action seeks monetary damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief due to Umpqua's policy and practice of charging
multiple Non-Sufficient Funds Fees and/or NSF fees followed by an
overdraft fee on the same electronic item, a practice which
breaches Umpqua's contracts with its customers, who include the
Plaintiff and the members of the class.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Portland, Oregon, and had a checking
account with Umpqua.
Umpqua is a bank with its headquarters located in Portland,
Oregon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Coletti, Esq.
PAULSON COLETTI TRIAL ATTORNEYS PC
1022 NW Marshall Street, Ste. 450
Portland, OR 97209
Telephone: (503) 226.6361
E-mail: john@paulsoncoletti.com
- and -
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557.1250
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
- and -
Taras Kick, Esq.
THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
815 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Telephone: (310) 395.2988
E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com
- and -
Kevin Roddy, Esq.
90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Telephone: (732) 636 8000
E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com
UNILEVER US: Nunez Sues Over Misleading Sale of Breyers Ice Cream
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Nunez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03846
(C.D. Cal., April 27, 2020), seeks to stop Unilever's alleged false
and misleading marketing practices with regard to Breyers Natural
Vanilla Ice Cream.
Unilever falsely and misleadingly markets Breyers Natural Vanilla
Ice Cream to consumers as containing only vanilla flavor from
vanilla (i.e. the vanilla plant) and not from non-vanilla sources,
according to the complaint. Unfortunately for consumers, this is
untrue, as much of the vanilla flavor comes from non-vanilla plant
sources. In fact, Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream has, at most,
only a trace of real vanilla and what consumers taste is vanilla
flavor provided by non-vanilla sources. Rather than only containing
real vanilla, Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream contains
non-vanilla flavors and vanilla enhancers which are not disclosed,
contrary to the legal requirements and expectations of reasonable
consumers. Unilever charges a price premium for Breyers Natural
Vanilla Ice Cream.
The Plaintiff says he would not have purchased or paid more for
Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream had Plaintiff realized that much,
if not all, of the vanilla flavor came from non-vanilla plant
sources. He would not have purchased nor paid more for Breyers
Natural Vanilla Ice Cream had he known that it does not exclusively
contain flavor derived from vanilla beans.
The Plaintiff purchased Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream in
California.
Unilever is one of the world's largest food and consumer packaged
goods companies, and it produces and markets ice cream products in
the United States and throughout the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
Email: ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
UNITED PARCEL: Court Strikes Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Andrew Dominguez v. United
Parcel Service, Co., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-01162-JGB-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order:
1. granting the Defendant's ex parte application to strike
motion;
2. striking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
3. setting briefing scheduling for revised motion for class
certification; and
4. directing the Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should
not be issued (in chambers).
The Court said, "The Plaintiff shall file a new motion for class
certification, if any, no later than May 18, 2020. The Defendant
shall oppose the new motion no later than May 25, 2020; and any
reply shall be filed no later than June 1, 2020. The hearing on the
new motion will be June 15, 2020. The Parties are ordered to meet
and confer regarding (1) whether the new motion advances theories
of liability not asserted in the FAC and (2) whether Plaintiff can
certify a class premised on claims not asserted in the FAC. If they
are unable to resolve those issues among themselves, they shall
brief any outstanding issues for the Court's decision in their
class certification papers."
United Parcel is an American multinational package delivery and
supply chain management company.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Grinis Asks for Safety of Prisoners at FMC Devens
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER GRINIS, MICHAEL GORDON, and ANGEL SOLIZ, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated v. STEPHEN SPAULDING,
Warden of Federal Medical Center Devens, and MICHAEL CARVAJAL,
Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, in their official
capacities, Case No. 1:20-cv-10738-GAO (D. Mass., April 15, 2020),
seeks to vindicate the constitutional rights of those imprisoned at
Camp Devens and, in so doing, to protect their safety and improve
public health amid COVID-19 pandemic.
Camp Devens, a U.S. military installation established during World
War I, was not the first place to see an influenza outbreak in
1918, but it was one of the hardest hit; more than 15,000 people
were infected, and more than 800 died, according to the complaint.
A century later, Devens faces a similar catastrophe. Devens now
hosts a Federal Bureau of Prisons medical center and satellite camp
that hold over 1,000 men, including some of America's most elderly,
sick, and medically vulnerable prisoners.
The Plaintiffs contend that those prisoners are acutely at risk of
illness and death due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and any outbreak at
the prison will imperil not only them, but also BOP staff and the
surrounding community.
FMC Devens is a United States federal prison in Massachusetts for
male inmates requiring specialized or long-term medical or mental
health care.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
William W. Fick, Esq.
Daniel N. Marx, Esq.
Amy Barsky, Esq.
FICK & MARX LLP
24 Federal Street, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: 857-321-8360
E-mail: wfick@fickmarx.com
dmarx@fickmarx.com
abarsky@fickmarx.com
- and -
Matthew R. Segal, Esq.
Jessie J. Rossman, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC.
211 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 482-3170
E-mail: msegal@aclum.org
jrossman@aclum.org
The Defendants are represented by:
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Attn: Civil Process Clerk
One Courthouse Way
Boston, MA 02210
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
UNITED STATES: Samma Sues in D.D.C. Seeking Review of DoD Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States
Department of Defense, et al. The case is styled as Angie Samma,
Abner Bouomo, Ahmad Isiaka, Michael Perez, Jane Doe 1-2, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, MARK ESPER, Secretary of Defense, in his
official capacity, Case No. 1:20-cv-01095-ESH (D.D.C., April 27,
2020).
The nature of suit is stated as "Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision." The cause of suit is
stated as "Judicial Review of Agency Actions."
The United States Department of Defense is an executive branch
department of the federal government charged with coordinating and
supervising all agencies and functions of the government directly
related to national security and the United States Armed
Forces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Hafetz, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 549-2500
Email: jhafetz@aclu.org
UNITED STATES: Sec. Wolf Appeals Decision in Doe Migrant Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Chad F. Wolf, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, et al. v. Chad Wolf, et
al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00250-DCB, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, Tucson.
Chad F. Wolf is the Secretary of the United States Department of
Homeland Security.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
allege inadequate and inhumane conditions in the Border Patrol's
migrant detention facilities in southern Arizona.
In January 2016, U.S. District Court Judge David Bury approved the
class action status of the lawsuit. The certification motion was
filed by several civil- and immigration-rights groups, including
the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, on behalf of two
unnamed women, who were detained and Norlan Flores, who has been
detained twice.
The appellate case is captioned as Jane Doe, et al. v. Chad Wolf,
et al., Case No. 20-15741, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by May 20, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on June 19, 2020;
-- Opening brief of Appellants Mark A. Morgan, Manuel
Padilla, Jr., Rodney S. Scott, Jeffrey Self and Chad F.
Wolf is due on July 30, 2020;
-- Appellees Norlan Flores and Jane Doe's answering brief is
due on August 31, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees JANE DOE, # 1; JANE DOE, # 2; and NORLAN
FLORES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:
Elisa Della-Piana, Esq.
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
131 Steuart Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (510) 847-3001
E-mail: edellapiana@lccr.com
– and –
Alvaro M. Huerta, Esq.
Linton Joaquin, Attorney, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
3450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 108-62
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 674-2829
E-mail: joaquin@nilc.org
– and –
Mary A. Kenney, Esq.
Karolina Joanna Walters, Esq.
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
1331 "G" Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Email: mkenney@immcouncil.org
– and –
Jack Williford Londen, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7415
– and –
Colette Reiner Mayer, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
Telephone: (650) 813-5600
– and –
Louise Stoupe, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Shin-Marunouchi Building
5-1 Marunouchi 1-Chome Chiyoda-ku, 29th Floor
Tokyo, Japan
Telephone: 81-3-3214-6522
Facsimile: 81-3-3214-6512
E-mail: lstoupe@mofo.com
Defendants-Appellants, CHAD F. WOLF, Secretary, United States
Department of Homeland Security, et al., are represented by:
Michael Anthony Celone, Esq.
Sarah Fabian, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 305-5033
– and –
Katelyn Masetta-Alvarez, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 305-0137
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Carrone Labor Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE CARRONE v.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., LEE VALENTA, and JASON DREFAHL, Case No.
MON-L-001081-20, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Monmouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on April 27, 2020.
The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05138 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated the New Jersey
Law Against Discrimination and the New Jersey Equal Pay Act, and
wrongfully discharged her in violation of New Jersey public policy.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover back pay, front pay, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees, together
with interest and costs of suit, injunctive/remedial relief, and
any other relief the Court deems reasonable and just.
UnitedHealth Group is an American for-profit managed health care
company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. It offers health care
products and insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew A. Luber, Esq.
MCOMBER, MCOMBER & LUBER
39 East Main Street
Marlton, NJ 08053
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephanie J. Peet, Esq.
Andrew D. La Fiura, Esq.
Timothy M. McCarthy, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
Three Parkway
1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350
Philadelphia, PA 19102
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Ritter Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Ritter, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Case No.
3:20-cv-02925 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2020), seeks refunds of the
amount the Plaintiff is owed on a pro-rata basis, as a result of
the Defendant's decision to close campus, constructively evict
students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as
a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease.
While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for the Defendants to do, this decision deprived the
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class from recognizing the
benefits of in-person instruction, housing, meals, access to campus
facilities, student activities, and other benefits and services in
exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition.
The Defendants have either refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, housing, meals, fees and other costs that the Defendants
are no longer providing, or have provided inadequate and/or
arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the
Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has paid substantial tuition for the Spring 2020
semester either out of pocket or by utilizing student loan
financing or otherwise.
The University of California is the multi-campus public university
system for the state of California, consisting of 10 constituent
institutions throughout the state.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Bohren
BOHREN LAW
501 W. Broadway Suite 800
San Diego CA 92101
Phone: (619) 433-2803
Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com
- and -
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
VALARIS PLC: Still Faces Zhang Suit over Securities Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valaris PLC continues to defend itself in a class action initiated
by Xiaoyuan Zhang, a purported Valaris shareholder, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The Company said, "On August 20, 2019, plaintiff Xiaoyuan Zhang, a
purported Valaris shareholder, filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of Valaris shareholders against Valaris plc and certain of
our executive officers, alleging violations of federal securities
laws. The complaint cites general statements in press releases and
SEC filings and alleges that the defendants made false or
misleading statements or failed to disclose material information
regarding the performance of our ultra-deepwater segment, among
other things. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased Valaris plc shares between April 11, 2019
and July 31, 2019. Under applicable law, the court appointed a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel. We anticipate that an amended
complaint will be filed in the second quarter of 2020. We strongly
disagree and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. At
this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or
the extent of any resulting liability."
Valaris PLC provides offshore contract drilling services. The
Company owns, operates, and manages rig fleets and provides
drilling services. Valaris serves customers globally. The company
is based in London, England.
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments Inc. is still facing the consolidated class
action suit styled, Wolther v. Maheshwari et al., 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 June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock
as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a
purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v.
Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and
others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the
SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition (the "Wolther
Action").
On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther
Action. These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther
Action, and a consolidated complaint was filed on December 11,
2018.
The consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among
other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the
registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech
acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose
delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD
competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute.
Veeco is defending this matter vigorously.
Veeco Instruments Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, sells, and supports semiconductor and thin film
process equipment primarily to make electronic devices worldwide.
Veeco Instruments Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Plainview, New York.
VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Defends Goetz Class Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action styled, Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, remains ongoing,
according to Voya Financial, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.
The litigation, Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Delaware, No.
1:17-cv-1289) (filed September 8, 2017), is a putative class action
in which plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to
represent other participants in the plan as well as a class of
similarly situated plans that "contract with [Voya] for
recordkeeping and other services."
Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary duty to the
plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and
excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya" distributed
materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee
disclosures to conceal its excessive fees.
The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Defends Zhou Class Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action styled, Zhou v. Voya Financial, Inc. and
Security Life of Denver, is still ongoing, according to Voya
Financial, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
The litigation, Zhou v. Voya Financial, Inc. and Security Life of
Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:19-cv-02781)(filed
September 27, 2019), is a putative class action in which the
plaintiff alleges that the Company did not properly administer
certain universal life insurance policies.
The plaintiff claims that the Company did not timely credit
interest earned on the payment of her premiums and incorrectly
calculated the amount of interest that the Company credited to her
account. In addition to the class allegations, the lawsuit alleges
breach of contract and conversion and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief.
The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
WARNER MUSIC: Williams Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Leonard Williams filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit styled Leonard Williams, et al. v. Warner Music Group
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-09691-RGK-PJW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that Warner Bros. Records and its subsidiaries have not
paid the full amount of royalties due to artists in connection with
the digital streaming of sound recordings in foreign countries.
The appellate case is captioned as Leonard Williams, et al. v.
Warner Music Group Corporation, et al., Case No. 20-55419, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by May 21, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on June 22, 2020;
-- Appellants The Lenny Williams Production Company and
Leonard Williams' opening brief is due on July 30, 2020;
-- Appellees Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and Warner Music Group
Corporation's answering brief is due on August 31, 2020;
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LEONARD WILLIAMS, an individual, and THE LENNY
WILLIAMS PRODUCTION COMPANY, a California corporation, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
Neville Johnson, Esq.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 975-1080
Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
E-mail: djohnson@jjllplaw.com
njohnson@jjllplaw.com
- and -
Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
Nicole Ramirez, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law
koncius@kiesel.law
- and -
Clifford Harris Pearson, Esq.
Bobby Pouya, Esq.
Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Email: cpearson@pswlaw.com
bpouya@pswlaw.com
dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees, WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, and WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 2-10, are represented by:
Sean Ashley Commons, Esq.
Sheri Porath Rockwell, Esq.
Rollin Ransom, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 896-6010
WEST SHORE BANK: Singleton Sues Over Charging of Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Singleton, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. WEST SHORE BANK CORP., Case No.
1:20-cv-00356-JTN-SJB (W.D. Mich., April 27, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's routine policy and practice of charging its customers
multiple overdraft or returned item fees for a single transaction.
The Defendant contracted with the Plaintiff to charge one Overdraft
or Returned Item Fee for a single "item" or "transaction" that
caused their account to become negative, according to the
complaint. Notwithstanding these contractual provisions, which
limit the number of Overdraft or Returned Item Fees the Defendant
may charge, the Defendant routinely charged the Plaintiff and the
Class multiple Overdraft or Returned Item Fees for a single item or
transaction. In doing so, the Defendant breached its contractual
promises and violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant's policies and
practices, the Plaintiff and the Class were injured by the
Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the City of Ludington, County of
Mason, Michigan, and held a checking account with the Defendant.
The Defendant is engaged in the business of providing banking
services to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
jthompson@sommerspc.com
- and -
Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Jennell K. Shannon, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Phone: 612-436-1800
Fax: 612-436-1801
Email: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
jshannon@johnsonbecker.com
WESTFIELD INSURANCE: Equity Pursues Rights Under Business Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
EQUITY PLANNING CORPORATION, On behalf of itself and all those
similarly situated businesses and entities v. WESTFIELD INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. CV-20-932122 (Ohio Com. Pleas, April 27, 2020),
seeks declaration of rights and fulfillment of obligations under a
commercial/business owner policy issued by Westfield.
Equity says that it insured itself under a commercial/business
owner policy issued by Westfield. Equity faithfully paid policy
premiums to Westfield, specifically to provide additional coverage
for "Business Income and Extra Expense Coverage" in the event of
business closures by order of civil authority. Equity adds that
under the Policy, insurance is extended to apply to the actual loss
of business income sustained and the actual, necessary and
reasonable extra expenses incurred when access to the Property is
specifically prohibited by order of Civil Authority as the direct
result of a covered loss to property in the immediate area of
Plaintiffs Property. The covered physical loss includes loss of use
and/or loss of utilization of the properties.
The Plaintiff contends that COVID-19's actual or suspected physical
presence at or in the vicinity of its Properties prevents it from
making full use of the Property, especially in cases where the
businesses renting from it must close in part or in full. Under the
terms and conditions of the Policy, this kind of loss constitutes a
physical loss to the Property in that there has been a loss of use
and/or utilization of the Property, says the complaint.
Equity engages in the commercial real estate business, leasing,
administration, and management for numerous real estate entities
throughout Ohio and multiple other states, wherein tenants lease
its properties.
Westfield is a property and casualty insurer, with its principal
place of business in Westfield Center, Ohio, and sells insurance in
Ohio and throughout the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
CONNICK LAW, LLC
25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101
Beachwood OH 44122
Telephone: 216-364-0512
Facsimile: 216-609-3446
E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com
WILHELMINA INT'L: Continues to Defend Shanklin and Pressley Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in
the class action suits initiated separately by Alex Shanklin and
Shawn Pressley, continue to await the court's decision on the
motions for class certification and summary judgment.
The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin and
Pressley Litigations are without merit and intends to continue to
vigorously defend the actions.
On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares
and Michelle Griffin Trotter (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New
York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel
who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought
by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation").
The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of
contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters
similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting
of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images.
Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation
include other model management companies, advertising firms, and
certain advertisers.
On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss.
On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to
Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants.
Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin
Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General
bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims
asserted therein against the model management defendants, and
stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest."
The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the
Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case.
Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then
Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs'
management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models
were at all relevant times employees, and not independent
contractors, of the model management defendants, and that
defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects,
including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the
models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not
maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs
with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom
were computed.
The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a
class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the
court deems proper.
On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most
of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court entered a decision granting in
part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26,
2017.
The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes
of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in
their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract
causes of action, and some plaintiffs’ remaining two New York
Labor Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time
frame.
The plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was
affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely
filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.
On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and
others, including Roberta Little (the "Pressley Litigation"), in
New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel
representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and
asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the
Shanklin Litigation.
The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of
claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017.
Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on
May 10, 2018.
Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case.
Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the
sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation. On July
12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim against
Little.
On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except
Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class
certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York
Labor Law Claims.
On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions
for class certification and filed a cross-motion for summary
judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and Little,
and a motion for summary judgment against Raske. Wilhelmina's
reply papers in further support of its summary judgment motions
were filed on October 23, 2019. The motions for class certification
and summary judgement were argued on December 4, 2019, and the
parties are awaiting decision.
The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin and
Pressley Litigations are without merit and intends to continue to
vigorously defend the actions.
Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah Class Certification Motion Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs' motion seeking class
certification of the case, Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et
al., is still pending.
On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet
Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming the Company, one of the Company's
officers and two of the Company's now former officers as
defendants.
On June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended
complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those previously
named, current and former members of the Company's Board of
Directors, one additional officer, and the underwriters in
connection with secondary offerings of the Company's common stock
by certain selling stockholders in 2016.
On October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
underwriters without prejudice.
On October 8, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those current and
former officers and Board members previously named, certain former
stockholders of the Company who sold shares of the Company's common
stock in secondary public offerings in 2016. The Company and its
current and former officers and Board members named as defendants
are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Zimmer Biomet
Defendant group". The former stockholders of the Company who sold
shares of the Company's common stock in secondary public offerings
in 2016 are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Private
Equity Fund Defendant group". The second amended complaint relates
to a putative class action on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between June 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016.
The second amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or omissions about the Company's
compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
regulations and the Company's ability to continue to accelerate the
Company's organic revenue growth rate in the second half of 2016.
The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on
December 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to the
motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018 and the defendants filed their
respective reply briefs on May 18, 2018.
On September 27, 2018, the court denied the Zimmer Biomet Defendant
group's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The court granted the
Private Equity Fund Defendant group's motion to dismiss, without
prejudice.
On October 9, 2018, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed a
motion (i) to amend the court's order on the motion to certify two
issues for interlocutory appeal, and (ii) to stay proceedings
pending appeal.
On February 21, 2019, that motion was denied.
On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.
On June 20, 2019, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed its
response. The plaintiffs' motion remained pending as of February
18, 2020. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief.
The Company said, "Although we believe this lawsuit is without
merit, during a mediation in December 2019, plaintiffs and
defendants, along with Zimmer Biomet's insurers, reached a
settlement in principle to resolve the claims. We have made an
accrual for the proposed settlement that we expect to be fully
covered by our insurers."
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and markets musculoskeletal healthcare
products and solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, and the Asia Pacific. It operates through four segments:
Spine, less Asia Pacific; Office Based Technologies;
Craniomaxillofacial and Thoracic; and Dental. The company was
formerly known as Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. in June 2015. Zimmer Biomet Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana.
ZOOM VIDEO: Simins Sues Over Failure to Deliver Promised Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Simins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No.
5:20-cv-02893-VKD (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2020), alleges that Zoom
has failed to deliver private and secure video conferencing to its
customers.
According to the complaint, among other things, Zoom has long
marketed the service as being protected with end-to-end, 256-bit
encryption, and has emphasized that it takes concrete steps to
ensure privacy and security for its users. But in reality, Zoom has
failed to deliver private and secure video conferencing. The level
of encryption Zoom provides is far less robust than what it
promised, and a wide variety of security failings have jeopardized
Zoom-users' privacy, the Plaintiff alleges. She contends that these
failings have enabled bad actors to join meetings without
permission, to access web cameras surreptitiously, and to access
many thousands of recorded Zoom meetings stored online. All the
while, Zoom has actively shared information about its users with
Facebook, despite failing to disclose that practice in its privacy
policy, she asserts.
Ms. Simins own a dance studio, where she teaches burlesque dance
and pole dance. Ms. Simins's studio was closed to in-person classes
as a result of the state's shelter-in-place order due to COVID-19.
After Ms. Simins began using Zoom, uninvited men joined some of her
classes on Zoom. The attackers were intimidating and harassing to
Ms. Simins's clients. On at least one occasion, Ms. Simins had to
cancel a session as a result, according to the complaint.
As a result, Ms. Simins says, her students have refused to join
more classes because of their fear over future incidents, and her
business has suffered as a result. Ms. Simins continues to pay for
Zoom, but she continues to worry about Zoom's security flaws. Had
Ms. Simins known about Zoom's security flaws prior to purchasing
it, she would not have paid for Zoom, says the complaint.
Ms. Simins purchased a paid Zoom license in order to provide
practice sessions for her clients.
Zoom provides a video-conferencing service called Zoom
Meetings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Andre Mura, Esq.
Amanda M. Karl, Esq.
Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com
amm@classlawgroup.com
amk@classlawgroup.com
jbk@classlawgroup.com
*********
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 ***