/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200513.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 13, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 96
Headlines
A PLUS HOME: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rembert FLSA Suit
AKAZOO S.A.: Issued False Reports to Attract Investors, Soe Says
ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Gracius Sues over Unlawful Collection Letter
ALLERGAN: Weisbein Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Obrien Alleges Violation under FDCPA
AMAZON.COM INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in B. F. Class Suit
ASPEN AMERICAN: Mikkelson Sues over Insurance Policy Claims
AXOS BANK: Faces Hoagland TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Robocalls
BED BATH: Faces Kirkland Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Price
BEL-AIR BAY: Fails to Pay Service Workers' Tips, Tizekker Says
BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Dutra Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
BP WEST: Alon USA's Motion for Sanctions Denied
BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Court Certifies Class in Savino Prisoners Suit
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Pena Appeals Order & Judgment to Second Circuit
BUCHER & CHRISTIAN: Underpays Hourly Workers, Westerman Claims
BUSINESS FUNDING: Previlon Sues over Failure to Pay Overtime
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Kraft Foods Global Antitrust Suit Ongoing
CALIFORNIA: Fitzgerald Files Civil Rights Suit
CHASE ISSUANCE: Class Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
CHASE ISSUANCE: Petersen Suit v. Chase Card Funding Ongoing
CHASE ISSUANCE: Suits Over JPMorgan Credit Card Policies Ongoing
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Refused to Pay Insureds Over COVID Losses
COLUMBIA REHABILITATION: Darty BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NY: Bennett et al Seek Tuition Fee Refund
COMMAND INT'L: Mosquera Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Ads
CONSOLIDATED TRAVEL: Bakov Slams Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
CORT BUSINESS: Nelson Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
CREATIVE HAIRDRESSERS: Miller & Mirabile Seek Unpaid Wages
CRONOS GROUP: Faces 2 Putative Class Suits in EDNY
CV SCIENCES: Bid to Dismiss Nevada Consolidated Class Suit Denied
CV SCIENCES: Bid to Nix Colette Amended Class Complaint Pending
DELTA AIR LINES: Dusko Wants Refund, Not Credits for Future Travel
DENTISTS INSURANCE: Germack Sues to Ensure Benefits Under Policy
DEVA CONCEPTS: Crawle Sues Over Hair Treatment Side Effects
DOWNTOWN CLEANERS: Duenez Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Laborers
DROPCAR INC: Slapped with $45,000 Judgment for Legal Fees
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces Robinson Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
E.T. BROWNE: Stretch Marks Cream Ineffective, Booker Suit Says
ELECTROCORE INC: Dismissal of Consolidated NJ Suit Under Appeal
ELECTROCORE INC: Priewe Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
ELKTON FCI: Williams Appeals Ruling in Wilson Habeas Corpus Suit
ERIE INSURANCE: Faces GFS Suit Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
FAIR ISAAC CORP: Credit Union Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct
FCA US: Tigershark MultiAir II Engines Are Defective, Wood Claims
FIRST TRANSIT: Underpays Paratransit Drivers, Pendleton Claims
FORD MOTOR: Smith Product Liability Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
FOUNTAINHEAD COMMERCIAL: Elizabeth M Byrnes Files Fraud Class Suit
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Reyes Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Technicians
GEICO INDEMNITY: McCoy Files Suit in New Jersey
GITIBIN & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Drivers & Detailers, Albayero Says
GOOGLE LLC: Roley Seeks to Certify Level 4 Local Guide Class
GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS: Tehomilic Files Suit in New York
HERTZ CORPORATION: Reece Suit Alleges State Wage and Hour Claims
HF FOODS: Faces Ponce-Sanchez Suit Over Decline in Share Price
HIMAGINE SOLUTIONS: Underpays & Misclassifies Coders, Johnson Says
HJE SUBS: Lenard Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
HOMELINK LLC: Abitbol Hits Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Nazarchuk Sues Over Faulty Tip-Prone Dressers
ILLINOIS: Jail Officers Seek More Pay for Work During COVID-19
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INT'L: Romita Class Suit Ongoing in Ontario
IZEA WORLDWIDE: Perez Class Action Settlement Wins Court Approval
JMP GROUP: Has Indemnification Deal Over Class Action Settlement
JOHNSON UTILITIES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Castillo Bribery Suit
JP MORGAN: TDD Dallas LLC Suit Transferred to N. D. Texas
JPMORGAN CHASE: Prioritizes Chosen Clients' PPP Loan, Ladaga Says
KNOXVILLE PALLET: Lumpkin Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
LAREDO PETROLEUM: Underpays Oilfield Workers, Dyches Claims
LIONDESK LLC: Gravori Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Acts
LOOMIS ARMORED: $1.5M Myers Labor Suit Deal Gets Final Court Okay
LQ MANAGEMENT: Underpays Maids & Housekeepers, Tribbit Claims
MARTIN MARIETTA: Underpays Manual Laborers, Smith et al Claim
MCCLATCHY CO: Still Defends Fresno and Sacramento Class Suits
MEET GROUP: Mowry Securities Suit Challenges Buyout by eHarmony
MICHIGAN: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Kensu Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Greenfeld Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Faces Pflum Suit Over Failure to Secure PII
NORTEK SECURITY: Hayward Files Suit in California
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Fabricant
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Banuelos Hits Share Drop from Hyped Forecast
NYCDOE: Discriminates Against Nursing Mothers, O'Leary Claims
OCEAN CC: Banegas Sues over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
OSL RETAIL: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Sawyer Claims
PARKING REIT: Bid to Dismiss SIPDA Class Action Pending
REALNETWORKS INC: Expects Valid Claims to Paid During Q2
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Appeals Ruling in Wilson TCPA Suit to 7th Cir.
REDSTONE FEDERAL CREDIT: Leslie Files Suit in Alabama
RELIANCE WORLDWIDE: Montag Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Gomez Class Action Ongoing
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Settlements in Kent Class Suit All Paid Up
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Fails to Shield Crew From COVID-19, Molchun Says
RUTGERS: Rocchio Sues Over Failure to Refund Tuition and Fees
SCWORX CORP: Yannes Sues Over Drop in Market Value of Securities
SECOND ROUND: Bolden Calls Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive"
SENTINEL INSURANCE: Kim Sues to Ensure Benefits for Policyholders
SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Mediation Ongoing in Consolidated Suit
SHOWNTAIL THE LEGEND: Entertainers Hit Unpaid Overtime, Tip Credit
SOCIETY INSURANCE: JDS 1455 Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
SONTAG & HYMAN: Ofori et al Sue over Confusing Collection Letters
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Boucher Sues Over Shelved Flight, Seeks Refund
SPRINGVILLE PARTNERS: Benitez Slams Autodialed Telemarketing Calls
SQE DELIVERY: Hasrouni Seeks OT Pay for Delivery Drivers
SYNERGY INSPECTIONS: Bengtson Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SYNERGY INSPECTIONS: Bengtson Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
TEXAS: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Valentine Civil Rights Suit
TIKTOK INC: P.S. Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Biometric Info
TOWER 157: Underpays Janitors & Superintendents, Peral Claims
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Fox Suit Over Coverage Breach of Contract
UNDER ARMOUR: Dahlin Alleges Phony Discounts
UNITED OF OMAHA: Bentley Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
UNITED STATES: Wolf Appeals Ruling in Roman Habeas Corpus Suit
VAIL RESORTS: Skiers Seek Refund Amid Closures Over COVID-19
VENUS CONCEPT: Class Suit over IPO Underway
VENUS CONCEPT: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff & Counsel in Pak Suit
VMSB LLC: Pichs Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
WATERMARK RETIREMENT: Fails to Provide Meal Periods, Alaniz Says
WELLS FARGO: Can Compel Arbitration in Cornelius Class Suit
WEST VIRGINIA: Prelim Injunction Bid in Baxley Suit Denied
[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
*********
A PLUS HOME: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rembert FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christina Rembert filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in her lawsuit styled Christina Rembert, et al. v. A Plus
Home Health Care Agcy, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00287, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Plaintiff and Home Care Employees were not paid
overtime compensation at a rate of one and one half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendant A Plus Home Health Care Agency LLC is a home care service
provider with locations in Lancaster, Ohio, and Columbus, Ohio. The
Plaintiff was a Licensed Practical Nurse.
The appellate case is captioned as Christina Rembert, et al. v. A
Plus Home Health Care Agcy, et al., Case No. 20-3454, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTINA REMBERT, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Peter G. Friedmann, Esq.
THE FRIEDMANN FIRM LLC
1457 S. High Street
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 610-9756
Facsimile: (614) 737-9812
E-mail: Pete@TFFLegal.com
- and -
Gregory R. Mansell, Esq.
MANSELL LAW LLC
1457 S. High Street
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 610-4134
Email: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Defendants-Appellees A PLUS HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY LLC, et al.,
are represented by:
Sanjay K. Bhatt, Esq.
BHATT LAW OFFICE
2935 Kenny Road, Suite 225
Columbus, OH 43221
Telephone: (614) 222-4900
AKAZOO S.A.: Issued False Reports to Attract Investors, Soe Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
AUNG K. SOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AKAZOO S.A. and APOSTOLOS N. ZERVOS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01900 (E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded securities of Akazoo between September 11, 2019
and April 20, 2020, alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's business, operational and
financial results during a press release that the Defendants issued
on September 11, 2019, wherein Akazoo announced the completion of
its reverse merger with Modern Media Acquisition Corp. and the
beginning of its shares trading on the NASDAQ under the symbol
"SONG."
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to disclose these
information: (1) Akazoo overstated its revenue, profits, and cash
holdings; (2) Akazoo holds significantly lesser music distribution
rights than it has stated and implied; (3) as opposed to Akazoo's
continued statements, it does not operate in 25 countries; (4)
Akazoo has a significantly smaller user base than it states; (5)
Akazoo has closed its headquarters and other offices around the
world. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and
the decline in the market value of the company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.
Akazoo S.A. is a global on-demand music, audio streaming, media,
and artificial intelligence technology company, with its principal
executive offices located at One Heddon Street, W1B 4BD, London,
England. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Gracius Sues over Unlawful Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CASSANDRA GRACIUS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00268-DAK-PMW (D. Utah, April 22, 2020)
arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Plaintiff is allegedly obligated to pay a debt.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff has received a letter dated
September 10, 2019 from Defendant in an attempt to collect an
alleged debt. However, the letter demanded payment during the
30-day validation without explaining that such demand does not
override the consumer's right to request validation of the debt and
the name and address of the original creditor, thereby violating 15
U.S.C. Section 1692g(b).
Additionally, because the letter is open to more than one
reasonable interpretation and reasonably susceptible to an
inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated consumer, the letter
also violates 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e.
Aldous & Associates, PLLC is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516)203-7600
Fax: (516)706-5055
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
ALLERGAN: Weisbein Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAY WEISBEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERGAN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:20-cv-00801 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for its practice of transmitting advertisement and
telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cell telephone and
the cell telephones of all others similarly-situated persons using
an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and without anyone's
prior express written consent, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
On or about April 1, 2020, the Plaintiff claims that he saw the
Defendant's video commercial marketing its Botox products which
displayed a message to text SAVE to 27747 in order to check his
eligibility for the Defendant's Botox Savings Program. However, the
Plaintiff was not informed that by texting SAVE he was authorizing
Defendant to deliver or cause to be delivered to him advertisement
or telemarketing text messages using an ATDS. The Defendant's
unsolicited text messages invaded the Plaintiff's privacy, intruded
upon his seclusion and solitude, constituted a nuisance, and wasted
his time by requiring him to review the messages. Further,
Defendant's SMS text messages caused Plaintiff to incur tangible
harms such as loss of cell phone battery life and financial losses
in requiring him to recharge his phone.
Allergan, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company that sells the Botox
Treatments with principal place of business located in Irvine,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
Christopher E. Stiner, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
- and –
David P. Milian, Esq.
Ruben Conitzer, Esq.
CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 372-7474
Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
cperez@careyrodriguez.com
rconitzer@careyrodriguez.com
ecf@careyrodriguez.com
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Obrien Alleges Violation under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Darryl Obrien, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial,
LP, Sherman Originator III LLC and LVNV Funding LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00550 (W.D., Tex., May 5, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Alltran Financial LP is a provider of recovery and receivables
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue
Lombard, IL 60514
Tel: (331) 307-7646
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
- and -
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group Ltd
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8181
Fax: (630) 575-8188
- and -
Marwan Rocco Daher, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 537-1770
Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
- and -
Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
2500 South Highland Aveneue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8181
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in B. F. Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Amazon.com Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled B. F., et al. v. Amazon.com
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00910-RAJ-MLP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought in connection with the alleged intentional and unlawful
recording performed by Alexa devices.
Alison Hall-O'Neil seeks to obtain redress for all Florida,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, and Washington minors, who have used Alexa in their
home and have, therefore, been recorded by Amazon, without
consent.
The appellate case is captioned as B. F.; A. A., minors, by and
through their guardian Joey Fields; C. O., a minor, by and through
her guardian Alison ONeil, individually and on behalf of allothers
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. AMAZON.COM INC., a
Delaware corporation; A2Z DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 20-35359, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served within
21 days of service of the appellees' brief, pursuant to FRAP 31 and
9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN]
ASPEN AMERICAN: Mikkelson Sues over Insurance Policy Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
RONALD A. MIKKELSON, DDS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-05378 (W.D. Wash., April 20, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
breach of insurance contract pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3).
Plaintiff is a family-owned, small business dentistry practice and
a policyholder of an "all risk" policy issued by Defendant.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff paid all premiums for "Direct
Physical Loss" coverage that includes coverage for risks of both
damage to and loss of covered property. Due to the worldwide
pandemic COVID-19, dentists, including Plaintiff, were prohibited
from practicing dentistry and Plaintiff's property sustained direct
physical loss or damage as a result of the proclamations and
orders.
However, Defendant has denied Plaintiff's policy claims based on
business interruption, income loss or closures related to
COVID-19.
Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that the policy or policies
cover the Plaintiff's losses and expenses, damages, pre-judgment
interest, reasonable attorney fees and costs.
Aspen American Insurance Company is an insurer carrier incorporated
and domiciled in the State of Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian S. Birk, Esq.
Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: (206)623-1900
Fax: (206)623-3384
Emails: ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com
- and –
Alison Chase, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden St., Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: (805)456-1496
Fax: (805)456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com
AXOS BANK: Faces Hoagland TCPA Suit Over Telemarketing Robocalls
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH HOAGLAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly v. AXOS BANK, Case No. 3:20-cv-00807-L-MSB (S.D. Cal.,
April 29, 2020), seeks to secure redress for prerecorded message
and telemarketing robocalls made by Axos in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant called his cellular
telephone in November 2019, and played prerecorded message,
advertising its Emerald Advance Line of Credit, a product it
jointly markets with H&R Block. Axos did not have written consent
to make this call, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff seeks an injunction against future calling, plus
damages for himself and a class of others, who received similar
robocalls from the Defendant without proper consent.
Axos Bank is a technology-driven financial services company
providing a diverse range of innovative banking products and
services for personal, business, and institutional clients
nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1230 Columbia St., Suite 1140
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 235-2416
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
csekino@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 729-5288
E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8297
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2021 Auburn Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45219
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
BED BATH: Faces Kirkland Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Kirkland, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BED BATH & BEYOND INC., MARK J. TRITTON, MARY A.
WINSTON, and ROBYN M. D'ELIA, Case No. 1:20-cv-05339 (D.N.J., April
30, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired
Bed Bath & Beyond securities between October 2, 2019, and February
11, 2020, both dates inclusive.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) due to "aggressive disposition of inventory," the Company
lacked sufficient inventory in key categories to support holiday
sales; (ii) the Company's internal control over inventory levels
and financial reporting was not effective; (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company was likely to experience reduced sales; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On January 8, 2020, Bed Bath & Beyond withdrew its fiscal 2019
guidance, citing pressures on sales and profitability, as well as a
new strategic plan for the Company's operations. On this news, the
Company's stock price fell $3.20 per share, or over 19%, to close
at $13.4 per share on January 9, 2020, thereby, injuring
investors.
Then, on February 11, 2020, Bed Bath & Beyond issued a press
release announcing preliminary fourth-quarter 2019 financial
results. Therein, the Company disclosed "a 5.4% decline in
comparable sales driven primarily by store traffic declines
combined with inventory management issues," including that
"inventory within certain key categories in the Bed Bath & Beyond
assortment was too low or out-of-stock during the period." On this
news, the Company's stock price fell $3.06 per share, or over 20%,
to close at $11.79 per share on February 12, 2020, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Bed Bath & Beyond securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.
Bed Bath & Beyond is a retailer that sells a wide variety of
domestics merchandise and home furnishings. The Company operates
under many brand names, including Christmas Tree Shops, Harmon,
buybuy BABY, and Cost Plus World Market.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
Atlanta, GA 30338
Phone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
BEL-AIR BAY: Fails to Pay Service Workers' Tips, Tizekker Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Tizekker and Katie McClelland, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BEL-AIR BAY CLUB LTD., Case No.
2:20-cv-03989 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the Defendant's alleged
longstanding policies and practices, which fails to properly
compensate non-exempt service workers for gratuities paid to them
as tip wages, unpaid overtime work, unreimbursed necessary business
expenses, and for work performed while "off-the-clock."
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have been denied proper
overtime compensation pursuant to the FLSA. For hourly-paid
employees who work more than eight hours in a day, or 40 hours in a
workweek, the Defendant fails to pay those workers at a premium
rate for those overtime hours. Instead, the Defendant pays its
hourly workers at their regular rate for all hours worked beyond
eight in a single day and/or beyond 40 in a single workweek. The
Defendant imposes mandatory "service fee" surcharges on the total
cost of banquet services, but fails to distribute the total
proceeds of those service fees to non-managerial service employees
as gratuity payments as required by California law.
The Plaintiffs were employed as non-exempt bartenders.
The Defendant operates the Bel-Air Bay Club in Pacific Palisades,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
David C. Leimbach, Esq.
Kristabel Sandoval, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com
BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Dutra Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
JULIA DUTRA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-10827
(D. Mass., April 29, 2020), is brought as result of the Defendants'
decision to close campus, constructively evict students, and
transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of
the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiff seeks refunds of the amount she and other members of
the Class are owed on a pro-rata basis, together with other
damages.
The Plaintiff contends that while closing campus and transitioning
to online classes was the right thing for the Defendants to do,
this decision deprived her and the other members of the Class from
recognizing the benefits of in-person instruction, housing, access
to campus facilities, student activities, and other benefits and
services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and
tuition. She adds that the Defendants have either refused to
provide reimbursement for the tuition, housing, fees and other
costs that the Defendants are no longer providing, or have provided
inadequate and/or arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully
compensate them for their loss
The Trustees of Boston University operate as a legal owner and
authority of the University. The Trustees hold financial, physical,
and human assets, as well as perform administrative and academic
activities of the institution.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Levine, Esq.
STANZLER LEVINE, LLC
65 William Street, Suite 205
Wellesley, MA 02481
Telephone: (617) 482-3198
E-mail: rlevine@stanzerlevine.com
- and -
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
BP WEST: Alon USA's Motion for Sanctions Denied
-----------------------------------------------
The case, Persian Gulf Inc. v. BP West Coast Products LLC et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01749 (S.D. Calif.), remains pending.
District Judge Dana M. Sabraw on May 7, 2020, denied Alon USA
Energy, Inc.'s Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1927.
A Mandatory Settlement Conference is set for Dec. 16, 2020 before
Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler.
Meanwhile, Nonparty JAMIE COURT, president of Consumer Watchdog,
and the Defendants in the case of PERSIAN GULF INC., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. BP
WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; TESORO REFINING &
MARKETING COMPANY LLC; EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, D/B/A SHELL OIL
PRODUCTS US; EXXONMOBIL REFINING & SUPPLY COMPANY; VALERO MARKETING
AND SUPPLY COMPANY; CONOCOPHILLIPS; ALON USA ENERGY, INC. and DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-mc-00039, submitted a joint
stipulation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 6, 2020, regarding the nonparty's motion for
protective order. The joint stipulation discusses a discovery
dispute between nonparty Jamie Court and the Defendants related to
a requested deposition subpoena directed at Mr. Court.
BP West Coast Products LLC is a La Palma, California-based provider
of oil exploration and production services.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is an oil exploration and natural gas company
headquartered in San Ramon, California.
Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC is an independent refiner
and marketer of petroleum products with principal place of business
at 19100 Ridgewood Parkway San Antonio, Texas.
Equilon Enterprises LLC, d/b/a Shell Oil Products US, is a Houston,
Texas-based an oil refining and marketing company.
Exxonmobil Refining & Supply Company is a subsidiary of
international oil and gas company Exxon Mobil Corp.
Valero Marketing & Supply Company is a manufacturer of
transportation fuels, and petrochemical and power products based in
San Antonio, Texas.
ConocoPhillips is an independent exploration and production company
based in Houston, Texas.
Alon Usa Energy, Inc. is an independent refiner and marketer of
petroleum products with principal place of business at 12700 Park
Central Drive Suite 1600 in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Nonparty is represented by:
Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
Benjamin Powell, Esq.
Daniel L. Sternberg, Esq.
CONSUMER WATCHDOG
6330 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 250
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (310) 392-0522
Facsimile: (310) 861-0862
E-mail: jerry@consumerwatchdog.org
ben@consumerwatchdog.org
danny@consumerwatchdog.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven E. Sletten, Esq.
Samuel Liversidge, Esq.
Jay P. Srinivasan, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Court Certifies Class in Savino Prisoners Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA ALEJANDRA CELIMEN SAVINO, JULIO CESAR MEDEIROS
NEVES, and all those similarly situated, Petitioners, v. STEVEN J.
SOUZA, Superintendent of Bristol County House of Corrections in his
official capacity, Respondent, Civil Action No. 20-10617-WGY (D.
Mass.), Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted a motion for class
certification.
The named Petitioners are two of approximately 148 individuals
detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") on civil
immigration charges and held at the Bristol County House of
Corrections ("BCHOC") in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts. The
Detainees are held in two on-site facilities: 92 are in a separate
ICE facility called the C. Carlos Carreiro Immigration Detention
Center, and the rest are housed in a portion of the BHCOC called
"Unit B" together with non-immigration pre-trial detainees.
Since February, the Respondent ("the government") asserts, the
medical team and administration of BCHOC have instituted strict
protocols to keep inmates, detainees and staff safe and take all
prudent measures to prevent exposure to the COVID-19 infection.
Entrance into the facilities by outsiders is now generally
prohibited; attorneys, clergy, and staff are medically screened
prior to entrance by questions relating to COVID-19 symptoms and by
body temperature assessment. Inmates and detainees who are over
60-years-old or are immuno-compromised are being specially
monitored.
The Detainees assert that they find it impossible to maintain the
recommended distance of 6 feet from others and they must also share
or touch objects used by others. They have provided affidavits
from two physicians who have recently visited Detainees on site.
Dr. Nathan Praschan of Massachusetts General Hospital states that
the best-known methods of preventing infectious spread, such as
social distancing, frequent hand washing, and sanitation of
surfaces are unavailable to the Detainees, who sleep, eat, and
recreate in extremely close quarters and do not have access to
basic hygienic supplies. Dr. Matthew Gartland of Brigham and
Women's Hospital avers that based on his own experience visiting
Bristol County House of Corrections, he does not believe that the
Detainees, can be adequately protected from the virus that causes
COVID-19. This is based on a lack of private sinks or showers and
inadequate hand soap supplies, and hand sanitizers, as well as
inadequate allowance for social distancing, screening for symptoms
and exposure to the virus, testing of individuals with symptoms,
and appropriate quarantine and isolation facilities.
The Detainees filed a habeas petition as a putative class action in
the Court on March 27, 2020. The petition asserts two claims: (1)
violation of due process as a result of confinement in conditions
that include the imminent risk of contracting COVID-19; and (2)
violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for failure to
provide reasonable accommodations, in the form of protection
against COVID-19, to the Detainees with medical conditions.
On the same day, the Detainees filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order ("TRO"), and a motion for class certification.
As these motions refer only to the due process claim, the Detainees
do not seek a TRO or class certification for their claim under the
Rehabilitation Act. The Government has opposed both motions.
The Court held an initial hearing on March 30, 2020, converting the
motion for a TRO into a motion for a preliminary injunction. At
the next hearing, on April 2, 2020, the Court provisionally
certified five subclasses and took the other matters under
advisement. The following day, the Court held another hearing at
which it was informed that the Government voluntarily agreed to
release six members of the first subclass. The Court deemed the
case moot as to those individuals, ordered release on bail under
certain conditions for three other members of the subclass, and
either denied bail without prejudice or continued the matter for
the rest of the subclass. It notified the parties that it would
consider bail for fifty additional detainees, and later set a
schedule for considering those 50 individual bail applications at a
rate of ten per day beginning on April 7, 2020. It has since
ordered bail for several more Detainees.
Judge Young tackles three issues. First, he rejects the
government's argument that the Detainees lack Article III standing
because their risk of injury is too speculative. Next, he
certifies a general class of Detainees for their due process claim
of deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.
Though there are indeed pertinent and meaningful distinctions among
the various Detainees, there is a common question of
unconstitutional overcrowding that binds the class together. Nor,
contrary to the government's assertion, is there a statutory bar to
class certification in the case. Finally, the Judge explains his
rulings and authority in ordering bail for certain Detainees.
In this moment of worldwide peril from a highly contagious
pathogen, the Government cannot credibly argue that the Detainees
face no "substantial risk" of harm (if not "certainly impending")
from being confined in close quarters in defiance of the sound
medical advice that all other segments of society now scrupulously
observe. This risk of injury is traceable to the Government's act
of confining the Detainees in close quarters and would of course be
redressable by a judicial order of release or other ameliorative
relief. Accordingly, Judge Young rules that the Detainees easily
meet Article III's standing requirements.
The Detainees moved to certify the following proposed class: All
civil immigration detainees who are now or will be held by
Respondents-Defendants at the Bristol County House of Corrections
("BCHOC") and the C. Carlos Carreiro Immigration Detention Center
in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts. At the hearing on April 2,
2020, the Court declined to certify the class as proposed but
provisionally certified five subclasses. The Jduge does not now
revisit that provisional ruling. Yet he does now certifies the
general class as proposed by the Detainees, albeit excluding those
not yet in custody.
The requirements of Rule 23 are met and the Judge certifies the
general class as proposed by the Detainees, with one caveat: He
declines to include those who "will be held," but are not yet in
custody. Although the government has not declared that it will not
admit more detainees to BCHOC during the health crisis, it has
agreed to notify the Court before doing so. Judge Young sees no
need to include possible future detainees in the class. Moreover,
since the situation is rapidly evolving and future detainees may
well be subject to different confinement conditions than those now
obtaining, it may be that the named representative cannot "fairly
and adequately protect the interests" of those future detainees.
Finally, Judge Young follows the light of reason and the expert
advice of the CDC in aiming to reduce the population in the
detention facilities so that all those who remain (including staff)
may be better protected. In this respect, the Supreme Judicial
Court of Massachusetts has articulated sound principles: The
situation is urgent and unprecedented, and a reduction in the
number of people who are held in custody is necessary, but the
process of reduction requires individualized determinations, on an
expedited basis, and, in order to achieve the fastest possible
reduction, should focus first on those who are detained pretrial
who have not been charged with committing violent crimes. The
Judge will proceed in a similar fashion in diligently entertaining
bail applications while the petitions for habeas corpus are
pending.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Young allowed the motion for class
certification. He now certified the following class: All civil
immigration detainees who are now held by Respondents-Defendants at
the Bristol County House of Corrections and the C. Carlos Carreiro
Immigration Detention Center in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts.
The named Petitioners in the action, Maria Alejandra Celimen Savino
and Julio Cesar Medeiros Neves, are appointed the class
representatives.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/cy3Ygj from Leagle.com.
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Pena Appeals Order & Judgment to Second Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ralph Pena filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum of Decision and Order dated March 30, 2020, and Judgment
dated April 7, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Pena v. British
Airways, PLC (UK), Case No. 18-cv-6278, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' failure to exercise reasonable care in
securing and safeguarding its account holders' Private Information,
specifically their names, billing addresses, email addresses, and
credit card information, including credit card numbers, expiry
dates and CVV codes.
The appellate case is captioned as Pena v. British Airways, PLC
(UK), Case No. 20-1426, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Ralph Pena, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP
412 H Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
Defendant-Appellee British Airways, PLC (UK) is represented by:
James B. Blaney, Esq.
BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC
2 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 716-0461
- and -
Keara M. Gordon, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 335-4500
Email: Keara.gordon@dlapiper.com
BUCHER & CHRISTIAN: Underpays Hourly Workers, Westerman Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK WESTERMAN, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BUCHER & CHRISTIAN CONSULTING, INC. d/b/a BCFORWARD,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01224-RLY-DLP (S.D. Ind., April 22,
2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant
for its alleged unlawful "straight time for overtime" payment
policy in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Senior Project Manager
from June 2016 until December 2018 at Defendant's Eli Lilly and
Company and OneAmerica in Indianapolis, Indiana.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members were employed as hourly employees and were not paid a
guaranteed salary. Also, they regularly worked more than 40 hours
in a week, but they were paid the same hourly rate for all hours
worked, including those hours in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek.
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members claim that Defendant
failed to pay them overtime for all hours they worked in excess of
40 hours in a single workweek.
Bucher & Christian Consulting, Inc. d/b/a BCForward is a global IT
consulting and workforce fulfillment firm that provides services
and resourcing for leading businesses and government organization.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Tel: (317)636-6481
Emails: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: 713-352-1100
Fax: 713-352-3300
Emails: 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
Tel: 713-877-8788
Fax: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
BUSINESS FUNDING: Previlon Sues over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERTO PREVILON, and all others similarly situated
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), Plaintiff v. BUSINESS FUNDING
NEW YORK, INC., a New York corporation, Defendant, Case No.
9:20-cv-80668-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 21, 2020) arises from
Defendant's alleged willful and intentional violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff has begun working with Defendant on or about January 6,
2020 through March 10, 2020.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked 9 hours per day on
Monday through Thursday and 8 hours on Friday, for a total of 44
hours worked per week. Defendant agreed to pay on the basis of a
commission equal to 3% of sales made by Plaintiff and Plaintiff was
paid $60 in total during the course of his work for Defendant.
The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and
other employees a full and proper overtime for work performed in
excess of 40 hours throughout his employment, and failed to
investigate proper payroll practices.
Business Funding New York, Inc. sells business loans, short term
loans, business factors, lines of credit, and similar financial
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nolan K. Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
5550 Glades Rd., Ste 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (954)745-0588
Emails: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Kraft Foods Global Antitrust Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
February 29, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself in a
class action suit entitled, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. et al v.
United Egg Producers, Inc. et al, No. 1:11-cv-08808 (DP).
On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several
defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States
shell egg industry.
The cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products
Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in three
groups of cases - the "Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action", the
"Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action" and the "Non-Class
Cases."
The Company settled all of the Direct Purchaser Putative Class
Action cases and the Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action
cases, and all Non-Class cases except for the claims of certain
plaintiffs who sought substantial damages allegedly arising from
the purchase of egg products (as opposed to shell eggs).
In addition, as previously reported, on October 24, 2019, the
Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with The
Kellogg Company dismissing all claims against the Company for an
amount that does not have a material impact on the Company's
financial condition or results of operations.
On November 11, 2019, a stipulation for dismissal was filed with
the court, but the court has not yet entered a judgment on the
filing.
The remaining plaintiffs are Kraft Food Global, Inc., General
Mills, Inc., and Nestle USA, Inc. ("Egg Products Plaintiffs"). The
Egg Products Plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief
under the Sherman Act and are attacking certain features of the UEP
animal-welfare guidelines and program used by the Company and many
other egg producers.
On July 2, 2019 the Egg Products Plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand, and on September 13, 2019 the case was remanded to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Kraft Foods Global, Inc. et al v. United Egg Producers, Inc. et al,
No. 1:11-cv-08808 (DP), where it was initially filed, for trial.
The Illinois court has not issued a case management order or any
other directive.
The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining case as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes
are meritorious and provable.
Cal-Maine said, "While management believes that the likelihood of a
material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation
has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements and
rulings described above, there is still a reasonable possibility of
a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust
litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to
estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company
because of this remaining case. Adjustments, if any, which might
result from the resolution of these remaining legal matters, have
not been reflected in the financial statements."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., incorporated on September 10, 1969, is a
producer and marketer of shell eggs in the United States. The
Company operates through the segment of production, grading,
packaging, marketing and distribution of shell eggs. The Company
offers shell eggs, including specialty and non-specialty eggs. The
company was founded in 1957 and is based in Jackson, Mississippi.
CALIFORNIA: Fitzgerald Files Civil Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Does 1 through 10,
Lieutenant C. Moore, Officer Jackson, Officer Little, Marcus
Pollard, Sergeant H. Cruz . The case is styled as Rhonda R.
Fitzgerald, an individual, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Marcus Pollard, an individual, Lieutenant C.
Moore, an individual, Sergeant H. Cruz, an individual, Officer
Jackson, an individual, Officer Little, an individual and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00848-JM-NLS
(S.D. Cal., May 5, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights:
Other filed pursuant to the Bivens Non-Prisoner.
The Defendants are government representative doing governmental
duties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Geralyn L. Skapik, Esq.
Skapik Law Group
5861 Pine Avenue, Suite A-1
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Tel: (909) 398-4404
Fax: (909) 398-1883
Email: gskapik@skapiklaw.com
CHASE ISSUANCE: Class Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Chase Issuance Trust 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 District Court for
the Eastern District of New York has granted preliminary approval
of the amended settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit.
On June 22, 2005, merchants filed a putative class action complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint alleged that VISA, Mastercard and certain member banks
including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase Bank, Capital One,
Citibank and others, conspired to set the price of interchange in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint further
alleged tying/bundling and exclusive dealing.
Since the filing of the Connecticut complaint, other complaints
were filed in different U.S. District Courts challenging the
setting of interchange, as well as the associations' respective
rules.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
cases in the Eastern District of New York for pretrial proceedings.
An amended consolidated complaint was filed on April 24, 2006 which
added claims relating to off-line debit transactions. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss all claims that pre-date January 1, 2004.
The District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted
that motion and those claims were dismissed.
Plaintiffs filed a first supplemental complaint in May 2006
alleging that the Mastercard offering violated Section 7 of the
Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that the offering
was a fraudulent conveyance.
In January 2009, the plaintiffs filed and served a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint against all defendants and an
amended supplemental complaint challenging the Mastercard initial
public offering ("IPO") making antitrust claims similar to those
that were dismissed previously.
With respect to the Visa IPO, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental
complaint challenging the Visa IPO on antitrust theories parallel
to those articulated in the Mastercard IPO pleading.
On March 31, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Separate motions to
dismiss each of the supplemental complaints challenging the
Mastercard and Visa IPOs were also filed. Plaintiffs and defendants
also fully briefed and argued their motions for summary judgment.
None of these motions have been decided.
In October 2012, Visa, Inc., its wholly owned subsidiaries Visa
U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association, Mastercard
Incorporated, Mastercard International Incorporated and various
United States financial institution defendants, including JPMorgan
Chase Bank and several of its affiliates and certain predecessor
institutions, entered into a settlement agreement (the "Settlement
Agreement") to resolve the United States merchant and retail
industry association plaintiffs' (the "Class Plaintiffs") claims in
the multi-district litigation.
On November 27, 2012, the District Court for the Eastern District
of New York entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement
Agreement, which provided, among other things, for a $6.05 billion
cash payment to the Class Plaintiffs and an amount equal to ten
basis points of interchange for a period of eight months to be
measured from a date within sixty days of the end of the opt-out
period.
The Settlement Agreement also provided for modifications to each of
the network's no-surcharge rules, which were effective as of
January 27, 2013.
On April 11, 2013, Class Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the
settlement. On September 12, 2013, the District Court for the
Eastern District of New York held the final approval hearing.
On January 14, 2014, the District Court for the Eastern District of
New York rendered its final order and judgment approving the
settlement.
A number of entities including retailers and objecting trade
associations appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, which, in June 2016, vacated the District Court for the
Eastern District of New York's certification of the class action
and reversed the approval of the class settlement.
In March 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined petitions seeking
review of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. The case has been remanded to the District Court for the
Eastern District of New York for further proceedings consistent
with the appellate decision.
The District Court for the Eastern District of New York has since
appointed separate counsel for Class Plaintiffs and divided the
class action into two separate actions, with one seeking damages
and one seeking injunctive relief. Class Plaintiffs, as well as
other merchants, recently filed motions seeking to amend their
complaints, which motions the defendants opposed.
In September 2018, the parties to the class action seeking monetary
relief finalized an agreement which amends and supersedes the prior
settlement agreement. Pursuant to this settlement, the defendants
have collectively contributed an additional $900 million to the
approximately $5.3 billion previously held in escrow from the
original settlement.
On January 24, 2019, the District Court for the Eastern District of
New York granted preliminary approval of the amended settlement
agreement, and formal notice of the class settlement is proceeding
in accordance with the District Court's order. The class action
seeking primarily injunctive relief continues separately.
Chase Issuance Trust operates as a special purpose entity. The
Company was formed for the purpose of issuing debt securities to
repay existing credit facilities, refinance indebtedness, and for
acquisition purposes.
CHASE ISSUANCE: Petersen Suit v. Chase Card Funding Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chase Issuance Trust said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that Chase Card Funding, LLC continues to defend
a putative class action suit entitled, Petersen et al. v. Chase
Card Funding, LLC et al., No. 1:19-cv-00741.
In June 2019, a lawsuit (Petersen et al. v. Chase Card Funding, LLC
et al., No. 1:19-cv-00741 (W.D.N.Y. June 6, 2019)) was filed
against Chase Card Funding and the Issuing Entity.
The putative class action was brought by several New York residents
with credit card accounts originated by JPMorgan Chase Bank (which
is not named as a defendant), who allege that JPMorgan Chase Bank
securitized their credit card receivables in the Issuing Entity.
The complaint contends that the defendants are required to comply
with New York state's usury law under the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit decision in Madden v. Midland
Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct.
2505 (June 27, 2016) because they are non-bank entities that are
not entitled to the benefits of federal preemption.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in August
2019 and in January 2020, the magistrate judge designated to act on
behalf of the district judge in the Petersen litigation issued a
report and recommendation that the defendants' motion be granted.
In February 2020, the plaintiff filed an objection to the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation. In March 2020, the
defendants filed a response to the plaintiff's objections and the
plaintiff filed a reply thereto.
Chase Issuance said, "The Petersen litigation is in its early
stages. Chase Card Funding believes that the claims are without
merit. However, despite the report and recommendation in favor of
the defendants' motion to dismiss, there can be no assurances as to
the outcome of the litigation and if decided adversely, investors
may suffer a delay in payment or loss on their notes.
Chase Issuance Trust operates as a special purpose entity. The
Company was formed for the purpose of issuing debt securities to
repay existing credit facilities, refinance indebtedness, and for
acquisition purposes.
CHASE ISSUANCE: Suits Over JPMorgan Credit Card Policies Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Issuance Trust said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that JPMorgan Chase Bank continues to defend
lawsuits that have been conditionally certified as class actions,
in relation to JPMorgan's credit card policies and practices.
The assets of the Chase Issuance Trust include a collateral
certificate, Series 2002-CC (the "First USA Collateral
Certificate"), representing an undivided interest in the assets of
the First USA Credit Card Master Trust (the "First USA Master
Trust"), whose assets include credit card receivables arising in
consumer revolving credit card accounts owned by Chase Bank USA,
National Association ("Chase USA").
A number of lawsuits seeking class action certification have been
filed in both state and federal courts against JPMorgan Chase Bank.
These lawsuits challenge certain policies and practices of JPMorgan
Chase Bank's credit card business.
A few of these lawsuits have been conditionally certified as class
actions.
JPMorgan Chase Bank has defended itself against claims in the past
and intends to continue to do so in the future.
Chase Issuance said, "While it is impossible to predict the outcome
of any of these lawsuits, JPMorgan Chase Bank believes that any
liability that might result from any of these lawsuits will not
have a material adverse effect on the credit card receivables."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Chase Issuance Trust operates as a special purpose entity. The
Company was formed for the purpose of issuing debt securities to
repay existing credit facilities, refinance indebtedness, and for
acquisition purposes.
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Refused to Pay Insureds Over COVID Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case GRAND STREET DINING, LLC, GSD LENEXA, LLC, and TREZOMARE
OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, each individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00330-HFS (W.D. Mo., April 23,
2020) arises out of the Defendant's failure to provide insurance
coverage for the losses sustained and expenses incurred by
Plaintiffs because of the ongoing Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
The Plaintiffs purchased insurance coverage from The Cincinnati
Insurance Company, including property coverage, as set forth in The
Cincinnati Insurance Company's Building and Personal Property
Coverage Form and Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage
Form, to protect their businesses in the event that they suddenly
had to suspend operations for reasons outside of their control, or
in order to prevent further property damage.
The Defendant's coverage forms do not include, and are not subject
to, any exclusion for losses caused by viruses or communicable
diseases unlike some policies that provide Business Income
coverage.
The Plaintiffs were forced to suspend or reduce business at their
restaurants due to COVID-19 and the ensuing orders issued by civil
authorities in Missouri and Kansas mandating the suspension of
business for on-site services, as well as in order to take
necessary steps to prevent further damage and minimize the
suspension of business and continue operations.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has, on a widescale and
uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds under its Business
Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority, and Sue and Labor coverages
for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any executive orders by civil
authorities that have required the necessary suspension of
business, and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to
minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. In
particular, The Cincinnati Insurance Company has denied claims
submitted by Plaintiffs under their policies.
Plaintiffs have owned and operated full-service fine dining
restaurants in the Kansas City metropolitan area.
The Cincinnati Insurance Company is an insurance company writing
insurance policies and doing business in the State of
Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
Thomas A. Rottinghaus, Esq.
Jack T. Hyde, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
Email: thudson@wcllp.com
trottinghaus@wcllp.com
jhyde@wcllp.com
COLUMBIA REHABILITATION: Darty BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GINGER DARTY, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated known and unknown
v. COLUMBIA REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, LLC d/b/a INTEGRITY
HEALTHCARE OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 2020-CH-03580 (Filed March 26,
2020), was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
April 29, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02607 to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant used a timekeeping system
that required the Plaintiff and others to scan their hands each
time they started and finished work. As a result, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant "collected, stored, used, and
transferred [Plaintiff's and a putative Class's] unique biometric
hand geometry scan identifiers, or information derived from those
identifiers," without following the requirements of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Columbia Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center is a skilled nursing
facility located in the downtown area of Columbia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
zflowerree@flsalaw.com
- and -
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
plesko@pwcklegal.com
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NY: Bennett et al Seek Tuition Fee Refund
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, EMMALINE BENNETT and ALASDAIR TREMLETT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03227 (S.D.N.Y., April 23,
2020) arises from Defendant's alleged breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.
Plaintiffs are enrolled as full-time students at Columbia
University for the Spring 2020 academic semester and have paid
tuition as per requirement.
Plaintiffs claim that they enrolled at Defendant's institution to
earn a degree that included the service of taking courses at the
campus with live teacher interaction. However, classes were
suspended, the remainder of the semester would be conducted online,
and Commencement exercises that were previously scheduled have been
cancelled.
Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that the tuition and fees they have
paid for in-person instruction at Defendant's institution are
higher than tuition fees for online institutions, and the value of
any degree issued on the basis of online or pass/fail classes will
be diminished for the rest of their life. Thus, they demand a
refund, but Defendant failed to refund any portion of Plaintiffs'
and the Putative Class members' Spring 2020 tuition payment.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs and the putative Class
members have suffered damage as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's breach by depriving them of the experience and services
to which they were promised and they have already paid.
Columbia University is a private Ivy League research university in
New York City. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212)983-1300
Fax: (212)983-0383
Emails: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
gegleston@gme-law.com
COMMAND INT'L: Mosquera Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN MOSQUERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMAND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY,
INC., NAFEES MEMON, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-03638 (C.D. Cal., April 20, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a call twice on his
telephone number ending in -4024 beginning on or about July 15,
2018 and on or about December 17, 2018 from Defendants telephone
numbers (818)827-3391 in an attempt to sell or solicit its
services.
Plaintiff affirms that he is not a customer of Defendants, and has
never provided any personal information to Defendants and "prior
express consent" to receive calls from Defendants using a telephone
facsimile machine.
Because Defendant illegally contacted Plaintiff and Class members,
they were harmed by causing them to incur certain charges or
reduced telephone time for which they had previously paid, and by
invading their privacy.
Plaintiff and Class members seek statutory damages, treble damages,
and injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future.
Nafees Memon is the owner, CEO, Secretary, CFO, and Director of
CIS.
Command International Security, Inc. is a marketer and provider of
security services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 877-619-8966
Fax: 866-633-0228
Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
CONSOLIDATED TRAVEL: Bakov Slams Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Bakov and Kinaya Hewlett, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Consolidated Travel
Holdings Group, Inc., James H. Verrillo, Daniel E. Lambert,
Jennifer Poole and Donna Higgins, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02459
(N.D. Ill., April 22, 2020), seeks actual monetary loss or the sum
of five hundred dollars for each violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005, treble damages, pre-judgment interest,
costs and such further relief.
Consolidated Holdings wholly owns non-party Consolidated World
Travel, Inc. and Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. They authorized
Virtual Voice Technologies to make auto-dialed calls to millions of
people around the U.S. offering a "free cruise." Plaintiffs claim
that they have received such calls. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7127
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
- and -
Jeremy Nash, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
Email: jnash@litedepalma.com
- and -
Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
65 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 107
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: (312) 789-9700
Fax: (312) 789-9702
Email: Jeff@jgbrownlaw.com
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GREGORY SCOTT GALATIAN, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CORECIVIC OF
TENNESSEE, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00229-SLP (W.D. Okla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying the case as a FLSA collective
action on behalf of:
"all current and former full-time correctional officers
employed by Defendant at any of its locations in Oklahoma
from March 12, 2017 to the present";
2. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
email to all present and former correctional officers of
the Defendant, who at any time during since March 12,
2017, worked 40 or more hours in a workweek;
3. directing the Parties to jointly submit within 14 days a
proposed Notice informing such present and former
employees of the pendency of this collective action and
permitting them to opt into the case by signing and
submitting an Opt-In and Consent Form;
4. directing the Defendant to provide within 14 days a Roster
of such present and former employees that includes their
full names, their dates of employment, and their last
known home addresses and personal email addresses, and
their last telephone numbers;
5. directing that the Notice, in the form approved by the
Court, be sent to such present and former employees within
30 days using the home and email addresses listed in the
Roster;
6. directing the Defendant to provide a Declaration that the
produced Roster fully complies with the Court’s Order;
7. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses
or email addresses are found for one or more of such
present or former employees; and
8. permitting Counsel for the Plaintiff to contact via
telephone any putative class member whose notice is
returned as undeliverable.
CoreCivic facilities support management and consulting services.
The company offers academic educations, addiction treatments,
training, visitation, health care, reentry program, and nutrition
services.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: 330-470-4428
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Edward L. White, Esq.
Kerry D. Green, Esq.
EDWARD L. WHITE, PC
829 E. 33rd Street
Edmond, OK 73013
Telephone: (405) 810-8188
Facsimile: (405) 608-0971
E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com
kerry@edwhitelaw.com
CORT BUSINESS: Nelson Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY NELSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORT BUSINESS
SERVICES CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV12143 (Filed March 26, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
April 29, 2020.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00920 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges in the operative complaint class-wide claims
for the Defendants' failure to pay all straight time wages; failure
to pay overtime; and failure to provide meal periods and rest
periods in violation of the California Labor Code.
The Cort Business offers a variety of services from home and office
furniture rental and clearance furniture to relocation and
destination services.[BN]
Defendant Cort Business is represented by:
Courtney L. Baird, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213-689-7400
Facsimile: 213-689-7401
E-mail: cbaird@duanemorris.com
- and -
Joseph A. Ciucci, Esq.
Adam C. Keating, Esq.
Christopher D. Kanne, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000
Atlanta, GA 30309-3929
Telephone: 404 253-6988
Facsimile: 404 393-0744
E-mail: ciucci@duanemorris.com
akeating@duanemorris.com
cdkanne@duanemorris.com
CREATIVE HAIRDRESSERS: Miller & Mirabile Seek Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA MILLER and MADELYN MIRABILE, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CREATIVE HAIRDRESSERS,
INC., RATNER COMPANIES, L.C. and DENNIS RATNER, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00912-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 20,
2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants
for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and the putative class
members are current, former, and future hourly, non-exempt
employees of Defendants who worked for Defendants during the past 3
years, and have earned wages over the course of their employment,
which remain unpaid by Defendants.
Allegedly, Defendants failed to pay employees, including
Plaintiffs, their earned wages for the pay period of April 7,
2020.
Plaintiffs seek payment of earned minimum wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
incurred in the prosecution.
Dennis Ratner is the CEO of Creative and Ratner, exercised
day-to-day control of operations and was involved in the
supervision and payment of employees.
Ratner Companies, L.C. is a family-owned salon company in the
country with over 700 salons in 16 states and the District of
Columbia.
Creative Hairdressers, Inc. provides beauty services and offers
haircuts, shampoos, perms, styling services, facial wax, and
various hair products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
FLOREN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Tel: (727)254-5255
Fax: (727)483-7942
Emails: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
Chris@fgbolaw.com
CRONOS GROUP: Faces 2 Putative Class Suits in EDNY
--------------------------------------------------
Cronos Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the company is facing two putative class
action suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.
On March 11 and 12, 2020, two alleged shareholders of the Company
separately filed two putative class action complaints in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants.
The complaints generally allege that certain of the Company's prior
public statements about revenues and internal controls were
incorrect based on the Company's March 2, 2020, disclosure that the
Audit Committee of its Board of Directors was conducting a review
of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with
certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the
wholesale channel.
The complaints do not quantify a damage request.
Defendants have not yet responded to the complaints.
Cronos Group Inc. operates as a diversified and vertically
integrated cannabis company. The Company offers production and
distribution platforms of medical marijuana, as well as cultivates
cannabis oil. Cronos Group serves customers in Canada.
CV SCIENCES: Bid to Dismiss Nevada Consolidated Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss filed in the
consolidated class action suit pending before the Nevada District
Court, has been denied.
On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action
complaint in Nevada District Court (the "Smith Complaint") alleging
certain misstatements in the Company's public filings that led to
stock price fluctuations and financial harm.
Several additional individuals filed similar claims, and the Smith
suit and each of the other suits all arise out of a report
published by Citron Research on Twitter on August 20, 2018,
suggesting that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose
that the Company's efforts to secure patent protection had been
"finally rejected" by the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO).
On November 15, 2018, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust, as Lead
Plaintiff for the consolidated actions. On January 4, 2019, Counsel
for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust,
filed a "consolidated amended complaint".
On March 5, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the action.
The Court denied the motion to dismiss on December 10, 2019, and
the parties have recently commenced discovery in the action.
Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations.
CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty
Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp.
and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV
Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.
CV SCIENCES: Bid to Nix Colette Amended Class Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the company is seeking dismissal of the
amended complaint in the class action suit initiated by Michelene
Colette.
On December 3, 2019, Michelene Colette filed a purported class
action complaint in the Central District of California, alleging
the labeling on the Company's products violated the Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act of 1938 (the "Colette Complaint").
On February 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Colette Complaint. Instead of opposing the company's motion,
plaintiffs elected to file an amended complaint on February 25,
2020.
On March 11, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations.
CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty
Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp.
and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV
Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.
DELTA AIR LINES: Dusko Wants Refund, Not Credits for Future Travel
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA DUSKO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01725-ELR (N.D. Ga., April 22, 2020) alleges that the
Defendant breached its contracts with thousands of paying air
passengers by offering credits for future travel on the airline
instead of providing refunds for flights canceled by the airline in
light of COVID-19.
On March 18, 2020, Delta CEO Ed Bastian wrote an update to
crewmembers and the public regarding steps the airline was taking
in light of COVID-19. Mr. Bastian highlighted that because "demand
for travel has dropped significantly," Delta was cutting scheduled
flights by 70% "until demand starts to recover."
The Defendant needs to carefully plan flight routes and schedules
to ensure that aircraft are available for scheduled departures from
various airports within the airline's large network. Large scale
cancellations, such as those made by Delta in light of declining
demand related to COVID-19, must therefore be carefully planned
well in advance of the scheduled flights.
Despite its self-imposed obligations to notify passengers of
cancellations and other flight schedule changes within 30 minutes
of becoming aware of such changes, Delta has been withholding
cancellation notifications from customers for weeks after canceling
the customers' flights. Delta is often waiting until a day or two
before a canceled flight to notify customers that the airline has
canceled the flight.
When Delta cancels a flight, its uniform contracts with its
passengers require the airline to either (1) rebook passengers on
the next available flight to their destination; or (2) provide a
full refund. The contract terms governing cancellations by the
airline do not give Delta the option of providing customers with a
"credit" for future travel on the airline instead of a refund.
Nevertheless, after canceling as many as 80% of its scheduled
flights, the Defendant has offered many of its canceled passengers
only two options: (1) rebook your flight to a route that the
airline has not canceled, or (2) obtain travel credit.
Delta Air Lines, Inc. is one of the major airlines of the United
States and a legacy carrier.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
Facsimile: (770) 227-6373
Email: roy@barneslawgroup.com
ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
– and –
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
– and –
V Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 250-3316
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: vprentice@tzlegal.com
– and –
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
Joshua R. Levine, Esq.
Daniel Tropin, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
1 West Las Olas Blvd. Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
Email: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
levine@kolawyers.com
– and –
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com
– and –
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
DENTISTS INSURANCE: Germack Sues to Ensure Benefits Under Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Germack, DDS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE DENTISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-00661 (W.D. Wash., April 30, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant to ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid.
Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff
cannot provide dental services, according to the complaint. The
Plaintiff intended to rely on its business insurance to keep its
business as a going concern. TDIC issued one or more insurance
policies to Plaintiff, including an "all risk" Businessowners
Property Coverage and related endorsements, insuring the
Plaintiff's property and business practice and other coverages at
all relevant times.
TDIC Businessowners Property Coverage promises to pay the Plaintiff
for risks of "all risk of direct physical loss" to covered property
and includes coverage for risks of both "loss of or damage to"
covered property. TDIC's Businessowners Property Coverage provides
the Plaintiff with Business Income Coverage, Extra Expense
Coverage, Extended Business Income Coverage and Civil Authority
Coverage. The Plaintiff paid all premiums for the coverage when
due.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's property sustained
direct physical loss and/or damages related to COVID-19 and/or the
proclamations and orders. The Plaintiff's property will continue to
sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the Sentinel
policy or policies, including but not limited to business
interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, and
other expenses.
The Plaintiff's property cannot be used for its intended purposes.
As a result, the Plaintiff has experienced and will experience loss
covered by the TDIC policy or policies. The Defendant has denied or
will deny all similar claims for coverage, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Germack owns and operates a dentistry practice
located in Seattle, Washington.
The Defendant is an insurance carrier incorporated in California
and whose headquarters are located in Sacramento, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian S. Birk, Esq.
Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
Maureen Falecki, Esq.
Amy Williams Derry, Esq.
Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Fax: (206) 623-3384
Email: ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com
awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Alison Chase, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 456-1496
Fax: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com
DEVA CONCEPTS: Crawle Sues Over Hair Treatment Side Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Crawle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Deva Concepts, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00840 (S.D. N.Y., April 21, 2020), seeks monetary, statutory
and punitive damages, compensatory relief, preliminary and
permanent injunctive and declaratory relief, costs and fees
incurred in connection with this action, including attorneys' fees,
expert witness fees and other costs and such other and further
relief resulting from breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, negligence, and for violation of North
Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
DevaCurl produces hair care products for consumers with curly,
super curly and wavy hair. Crawle complained of hair loss, hair
damage, balding and scalp injury when using these products. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L St. NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
jtycko@tzlegal.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com
jbourne@pswlaw.com
DOWNTOWN CLEANERS: Duenez Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Laborers
------------------------------------------------------------
CELICA DUENEZ, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PLAINTIFFS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, Plaintiff, v. DOWNTOWN
CLEANERS, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, SUNGKWON KIM,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND STEPHANIE KIM, INDIVIDUALLY Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02478 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2020) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance of the
Municipal Code of Chicago to recover unpaid back wages earned on or
before the date three years prior to the filing of this complaint.
Plaintiff was employed as an associate/laborer. Plaintiff performed
duties related to steaming, pressing and cleaning garments,
operating certain machinery for the purpose of dry cleaning
garments, operated the cash register and answered customer
inquiries. Plaintiff also performed other related duties as
assigned. Plaintiff also aided other laborer employees employed by
Downtown Cleaners.
Downtown Cleaners, Inc. owns and operates a number of full-service
dry-cleaning stores across the Chicago area in Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 853-1450
DROPCAR INC: Slapped with $45,000 Judgment for Legal Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
DropCar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the company was a defendant in a class
action lawsuit which resulted in a judgement entered into whereby
the Company is required to pay legal fees in the amount of $45,000
to the plaintiff's counsel.
As of and for the year ended December 31, 2019, the Company
recorded $45,000 as current liabilities held for sale and loss from
operations of discontinued components.
DropCar, Inc. designs and develops software solutions. The Company
provides vehicle assistance and logistics technology platform that
automates pickup and delivery of customer vehicles for parking,
maintenance, and repairs. DropCar serves customers in the State of
New York.
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces Robinson Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elyse Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-00598-UNA (D. Del., April 30,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
Some time prior to March 9, 2020, an obligation was allegedly
incurred to creditor Synchrony Bank/AEO, Inc. Synchrony Bank/AEO,
Inc. is a "creditor." The Defendant Cavalry SPV purchased the
Synchrony Bank/AEO, Inc. debt and contracted with Defendant DRS to
collect the alleged debt. On March 9, 2020, Defendant DRS sent the
Plaintiff an initial collection letter regarding the alleged debt
owed to Defendant Cavalry SPV.
According to the complaint, Defendant DRS' statement clearly
implies that it could have sued but for the age of the debt. The
Plaintiff contends that this is a false statement because Defendant
DRS would never be able to sue on this debt due to the fact that
DRS did not own the debt.
The Plaintiff incurred an informational injury from the deceptive
and misleading Letter because the Letter implied that were it not
for the age of the debt, the Defendant DRS could sue, when in fact,
DRS did not own the debt and thus, could not sue at any point, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Delaware.
Defendant DRS is a "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy., Suite 22
Wilmington, DE 19805
Phone: (302) 722-6885
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
E.T. BROWNE: Stretch Marks Cream Ineffective, Booker Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chezaree Booker and Qwonjit Nelson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. E.T. Browne Drug Co.,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03166 (S.D. N.Y., April 21, 2020),
seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, prejudgment
interest on all amounts awarded, restitution and all other forms of
equitable monetary relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses
and costs of suit resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of
implied and express warranty, fraud and for violation of New York
General Business Laws.
E.T. Browne Drug Co. makes Palmer's Massage Lotion for Stretch
Marks, Massage Cream for Stretch Marks and Tummy Butter for Stretch
Marks. Plaintiffs purchased these products and claim that said
products have no effect on their stretch marks. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
ykopel@bursor.com
ELECTROCORE INC: Dismissal of Consolidated NJ Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
electroCore, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the consolidated "Kuehl"
and "Stone" action, proceeding under Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19
filed a notice of appeal with the New Jersey Superior Court -
Appellate Division.
On July 8, 2019 and August 1, 2019, purported stockholders of the
company served putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court
of New Jersey for Somerset County, captioned Paul Kuehl vs.
electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19 and Shirley
Stone vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 001007-19,
respectively.
In addition to the company, the defendants include present and past
directors and officers, Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor Fitzgerald &
Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the underwriters for our
IPO; and two of our stockholders.
On August 15, 2019, the Superior Court entered an order
consolidating the Kuehl and Stone actions, which are proceeding
under Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19. Each plaintiff was appointed a
co-lead plaintiff.
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which sought
certification of a class of stockholders who purchased the
company's common stock in its initial public offering (IPO) or
whose purchases are traceable to that offering.
The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with
respect to the registration statement and related prospectus for
the IPO.
The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.
On October 31, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint or in the alternative to stay the action in favor of the
pending federal action.
On February 21, 2020 the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On March
2, 2020 the court entered an amended order dismissing the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.
On March 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
N.J. Superior Court – Appellate Division.
electroCore, Inc., a bioelectronic medicine company, engages in
developing a range of patient administered non-invasive vagus nerve
(VNS) stimulation therapies for the treatment of various conditions
in neurology, rheumatology, and other fields. The company was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
ELECTROCORE INC: Priewe Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
electroCore, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Priewe vs.
electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 1:19-cv-19653, has been voluntarily
dismissed.
On September 26, 2019 and October 31, 2019, purported stockholders
of the company served putative class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned
Allyn Turnofsky vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 3:19-cv-18400,
and Priewe vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 1:19-cv-19653,
respectively.
In addition to the company, the defendants include present and past
directors and officers, and Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor
Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the
underwriters for the company's initial public offering (IPO).
The plaintiffs each seek to represent a class of stockholders who
(i) purchased the company's common stock in its IPO or whose
purchases are traceable to the IPO, or (ii) who purchased common
stock between the IPO and September 25, 2019.
The complaints each allege that the defendants violated Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, with respect to (i) the registration statement and
related prospectus for the IPO, and (ii) certain post-IPO
disclosures filed with the SEC.
The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.
In the Turnofsky case, several plaintiffs and their counsel are
engaged in motion practice to select a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. Briefing is complete on the motions, but the
court has not yet ruled.
On February 19, 2020, the Priewe case was voluntarily dismissed.
electroCore said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend
ourselves in these matters. However, in light of, among other
things, the preliminary stage of these litigation matters, we are
unable to determine the reasonable probability of loss or a range
of potential loss. Accordingly, we have not established an accrual
for potential losses, if any, that could result from any
unfavorable outcome, and there can be no assurance that these
litigation matters will not result in substantial defense costs
and/or judgments or settlements that could adversely affect our
financial condition."
electroCore, Inc., a bioelectronic medicine company, engages in
developing a range of patient administered non-invasive vagus nerve
(VNS) stimulation therapies for the treatment of various conditions
in neurology, rheumatology, and other fields. The company was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
ELKTON FCI: Williams Appeals Ruling in Wilson Habeas Corpus Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants-Respondents Mark Williams, et al., filed an appeal from
a court ruling issued in the lawsuit styled Craig Wilson, et al. v.
Mark Williams, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00794, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.
Mark Williams is sued in his official capacity as Warden of Elkton
Federal Correctional Institution.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the emergency
habeas action was brought by the inmates at Elkton Federal
Correctional Institution, seeking release from Elkton due to the
spread of COVID-19 within the prison. The Petitioners claim to
represent both a class of all Elkton inmates, as well as a subclass
of medically vulnerable inmates.
The appellate case is captioned as Craig Wilson, et al. v. Mark
Williams, et al., Case No. 20-3447, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Petitioners-Appellees CRAIG WILSON, ERIC BELLAMY, KENDAL NELSON and
MAXIMINO NIEVES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
David Joseph Carey
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF COLUMBUS
1108 City Park Avenue, Suite 203
Columbus, OH 43206
Telephone: (614) 586-1972
Respondents-Appellants MARK WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as
Warden of Elkton Federal Correctional Institution, and MICHAEL
CARVAJAL, In his official capacity as the Federal Bureau of Prisons
Director, are represented by:
James Raymond Bennett, II, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
801 W. Superior Avenue, Suite 400
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 622-3600
ERIE INSURANCE: Faces GFS Suit Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
GENEVA FOREIGN & SPORTS, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK;
ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY; and ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY d/b/a Erie
Insurance Exchange, Case No. 1:20-cv-00093-SPB (W.D. Pa., April 29,
2020), is brought by the Plaintiff for wrongfully denying its
claims for Business Income and Extra Expense coverage resulting
from losses sustained due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
GFS alleges that the Defendant voluntarily undertook a blatant
breach of insurance obligations in exchange for its premium
payments. The Defendant issued a blanket denial to its claim for
Business Income losses or other covered expenses related to
COVID-19 or the Closure Orders, without first conducting a
meaningful coverage investigation, GFS adds.
GFS contends that it is now struggling to survive as the COVID-19
global pandemic and recent executive orders issued by the Governor
of the State of New York have brought its business to a
standstill.
GFS has operated a car service and sales centers in the upstate New
York area for over 40 years.
Erie Indemnity manages Erie Insurance Exchange, a reciprocal
insurance exchange, and engages in the business of selling
insurance contracts to commercial entities through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries Erie Insurance Company and Erie Insurance Company of
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
Lily Hough, Esq.
Theo Benjamin, Esq.
Lily Hough, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: 312 589 6370
Facsimile: 312 589 6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
tbenjamin@edelson.com
lhough@edelson.com
FAIR ISAAC CORP: Credit Union Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST CHOICE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, on Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02516 (N.D. Ill., April 23, 2020) is a
class action brought by Plaintiff First Choice Federal Credit
Union, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
residents of the United States, under the Sherman Act against
Defendant Fair Isaac Corporation for redress of the injury and
damages resulting from its monopolizing, conspiring to monopolize,
and otherwise unreasonably restraining trade from at least as early
as January 1, 2006, through the date by which the anticompetitive
effects of Defendant's violations of law shall have ceased, but in
any case no earlier than the present.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has abused its monopoly
power by engaging in anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct and
agreements. The Defendant has suppressed competition, stymied
innovation, and limited access to credit for millions of Americans
-- all in violation of the Sherman Act.
The Defendant's anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct has harmed
businesses that have been deprived of competitive pricing for
instruments that allow them to gauge credit risk and have had their
freedom of choice restricted. Opening the market to competition is
essential to competitive pricing and product innovation, including
scoring the tens of millions of creditworthy Americans who have
been denied access to credit.
Plaintiff purchased at least one FICO Score from Fair Isaac and
TransUnion, which is headquartered in this District. Plaintiff was
injured in its business or property as a direct, proximate, and
material result of Defendant's violations of law. First Choice
Federal Credit Union also threatened with future injury to its
business and property by reason of Defendant's continuing
violations of law.
First Choice Federal Credit Union is a financial institution that
provides financial services, including deposit accounts, credit
and/or debit cards, and lending and other credit-related facilities
for consumers.
Fair Isaac Corporation is a data analytics company based in San
Jose, California focused on credit scoring services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven F. Molo, Esq.
Lisa W. Bohl, Esq.
MOLOLAMKEN LLP
300 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 5350
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 450-6700
Facsimile: (312) 450-6701
Email: smolo@mololamken.com
lbohl@mololamken.com
– and –
Lauren M. Weinstein, Esq.
MOLOLAMKEN LLP
600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20037
Telephone: (202) 556-2000
Facsimile: (202) 556-2001
Email: lweinstein@mololamken.com
– and –
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
– and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
111 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
FCA US: Tigershark MultiAir II Engines Are Defective, Wood Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER WOOD, ASHLEY SCHUCHART, KAREN BURKE, and DANIELLE COATES, v.
FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-11054-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich., April 29, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all those similarly situated, who
purchased or leased any vehicle equipped with a 2.4L Tigershark
MultiAir II Engine manufactured and sold by FCA US LLC, formerly
known as Chrysler Group LLC.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Class Vehicles contain a significant
design and/or manufacturing defect in their engines that causes
them to improperly burn off and/or consume abnormally high amounts
of oil. As a result of this "Oil Consumption" defect, Class
Vehicles can shut down during the course of their normal
operation--placing the occupants and surrounding vehicles at an
increased risk of serious injury and death. Indeed, FCA has
expressly acknowledged in other unrelated safety recalls that "an
engine stall could cause a crash without prior warning."
The alleged defects not only threaten every passenger in a Class
Vehicle, they also materially reduce the Class Vehicles' value as
well, according to the complaint. Consumers, who purchased Class
Vehicles, have been harmed by purchases they would not have made or
paid as much for had they known the truth. FCA should be required
to compensate consumers for its deceptive conduct and remedy these
defects, the Plaintiffs contend.
FCA US is a North American automaker based in Auburn Hills,
Michigan. The Company designs, manufactures, and sells or
distributes vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep (TM), Ram,
FIAT and Alfa Romeo brands, as well as the SRT performance
designation. The Company also distributes Mopar and Alfa Romeo
parts and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
elaine@hbsslaw.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
Miller Building
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@miller.law
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
Todd Naylor, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
One West 4th Street, 18th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
E-mail jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
tnaylor@gs-legal.com
FIRST TRANSIT: Underpays Paratransit Drivers, Pendleton Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PENDLETON, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FIRST TRANSIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01985
(E.D. Pa., April 21, 2020) is a collective and class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act by denying overtime premium wages to
its employees for scheduled work they performed.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a full-time, hourly
Paratransit Driver at the First Transit depot in Conshohocken, PA
from 2005 to present.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff was routinely scheduled by
Defendant to work at least 40 hours per week, gave him a daily
manifest showing an O-Time gap of more than 90 minutes between
rides about two times a week, and occasionally received an
unscheduled ride from the Dispatcher during the O-Time gap.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant's O-Time policies and practice
caused Plaintiff to perform an average of between four and five
hours of off-the-clock work each week. Also, the hours reflected on
his paychecks did not match up with the number of hours he was
working.
Moreover, Plaintiff raised the issue of unpaid O-Time work with
multiple Supervisors and continued to raise the issue from time to
time since 2005. However, Supervisors consistently responded by
saying this is the way it works, the same policy applies to
everyone, and that nothing can be done to change it.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages is
the "number-one problem" and the reason why many Paratransit
Drivers left the Company.
First Transit, Inc. is one of the largest private sector providers
of public transit management and contracting in North America.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Cohen, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: (215)873-4836
Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com
- and –
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: (312)233-1550
Emails: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
tbevcar@stephanzouras.com
FORD MOTOR: Smith Product Liability Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN SMITH and DANIEL FAIR,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-00211 (Filed Jan. 10, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois (Chicago) on April 29, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02612 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Virginia M. Kendall.
The lawsuit involves property damage product liability matters.
The Plaintiffs bring this case individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons, who purchased or leased Model
Year 2017‒2020 Ford F-150 vehicles that were designed,
manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased by the
Defendant or its parent, subsidiary, or affiliates.
The Defendant knew or should have known that the Vehicles contain
one or more design and/or manufacturing defects, including defects
contained in the Vehicles' 10R80, 10-speed automatic transmission
that can shift harshly and erratically, causing the vehicle to
jerk, lunge, and hesitate between gears, says the complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alex Straus, Esq.
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
16748 McCormick Street
Los Angeles, CA 91436
Telephone: (310) 450-9689
Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and -
John R. Fabry, Esq.
Luis Munoz, Esq.
THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
1717 N. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 305
Round Rock, TX 78664
Telephone: (512) 671-7277
Facsimile: (512) 238-0275
E-mail: JFabry@carlsonattorneys.com
- and -
Sidney F. Robert, Esq.
BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES
300 Fannin, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 225-1682
Facsimile: (713) 225-1785
E-mail: sidney.robert@bcoonlaw.com
Defendant Ford Motor Company is represented by:
Heather Kim, Esq.
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive Suite 200
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 453-5419
E-mail: HKim@kasowitz.com
FOUNTAINHEAD COMMERCIAL: Elizabeth M Byrnes Files Fraud Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fountainhead
Commercial Capital, LLC. The case is styled as Elizabeth M. Byrnes,
Inc., a corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Fountainhead Commercial Capital, LLC and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-04149-DDP-RAO (C.D., Cal., May 6, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Fraud.
Fountainhead is a nationwide direct lender specializing in SBA 504,
SBA 7(a) and conventional low-LTV loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H Haffner, Esq.
Haffner Law PC
445 South Figueroa Street Suite 2625
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 514-5681
Fax: (213) 514-5682
Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
- and -
Bart I Ring, Esq.
The Ring Law Firm APLC
5550 Topanga Canyon Boulevard Suite 200
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (818) 587-9299
Fax: (818) 587-9292
Email: bart@bartringlaw.com
- and -
Graham Lambert, Esq.
Haffner Law PC
445 South Figueroa Street Suite 2625
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 514-5681
Fax: (213) 514-5682
Email: gl@haffnerlawyers.com
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Reyes Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Technicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LUIS REYES, on his own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS,
INC. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care North America and Fresenius
Kidney Care, a Division of Fresenius Care North America and
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF FLORIDA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
6:20-cv-00706 (M.D. Fla., April 23, 2020) arises from Defendants'
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly rate and a
non-exempt Technician from approximately September 2015 through
September 2019.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and those similarly situated
Technicians routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week as part
of their regular job duties.
The complaint asserts that Defendants willfully failed to record
all of Plaintiff and those similarly situated Technicians hours
worked, and to pay them overtime compensation at a rate of time and
a half of their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. is a leading provider of
dialysis products and services.
Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. is a joint company to
Fresenius also providing dialysis products and services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Tel: (407)420-1414
Fax: (407)245-3383
Email: kimd@forthepeople.com
GEICO INDEMNITY: McCoy Files Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEICO Indemnity
Company. The case is styled as Diane McCoy, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO
Indemnity Company, a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-05597 (D.N.J., May 6, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
pursuant to the Diversity-Insurance Contract.
GEICO Indemnity Company operates as an insurance company. The
Company provides vehicle, property, business, and life insurance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Andrew Dicello, Esq.
Dicello Levitt Gutzler LLC
7556 Mentor Avenue
Mentor, OH 44060
Tel: (440) 953-8888
Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
GITIBIN & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Drivers & Detailers, Albayero Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GILMA YESENIA ALBAYERO, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GITIBIN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
d/b/a GO RENTALS, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20VECV00503 (Cal. Sup. Ct., April
20, 2020) is a representative action brought against Defendants for
recovery of civil penalties under California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for their alleged unlawful employment
practices.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
Driver/Detailer since February 2018.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of
eight hours per workday and/or more than 40 hours per workweek.
But, Defendants failed to pay him overtime compensation equal to
one-and-one-half times her regular rate of pay for working overtime
hours. Although Defendants were paying Plaintiff and other
employees non-discretionary bonuses, Defendants failed to include
all forms of Incentive Pay when calculating their regular rate of
pay.
Also, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees with accurate, itemized wage statements.
Gitibin & Associates, Inc. is an elite car rental service company
providing car rental services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
Milan Moore, Esq.
LIDMAN LAW, APC
222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (424)322-4772
Fax: (424)322-4775
Emails: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
mmoore@lidmanlaw.com
- and –
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (424)292-2350
Fax: (424)292-2355
Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
GOOGLE LLC: Roley Seeks to Certify Level 4 Local Guide Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANDREW ROLEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE, LLC, Case
No. 5:18-cv-07537-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court for an order on June 25, 2020:
1. certifying a class of:
"all residents of the United States who attained "Level 4"
status as a Google Local Guide after November 12, 2015 and
redeemed the benefit of 1 TB of Google Drive storage"; and
2. appointing class counsel.
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hard harware.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Monique Olivier, Esq.
Christian Schreiber, Esq.
OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP
201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (415) 484-0980
Facsimile: (415) 658-7758
E-mail: monique@osclegal.com
christian@osclegal.com
- and -
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Stephanie A. Chen, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
sachen@locklaw.com
- and -
Vildan A. Teske, Esq.
Marisa C. Katz, Esq.
TESKE KATZ KITZER & ROCHEL, PLLP
222 South 9th Street, Suite 4050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 746-1558
Facsimile: (651) 846-5339
E-mail: teske@tkkrlaw.com
katz@tkkrlaw.com
- and -
Seth Leventhal, Esq.
LEVENTHAL PLLC
SPS Commerce Tower
333 S. 7th Street, Suite No. 1150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 234-7349
Facsimile: (612) 437-4980
E-mail: seth@leventhalpllc.com
GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS: Tehomilic Files Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Graco Children's
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Silvia Tehomilic, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Graco
Children's Products, Inc. and Newell Brands DTC, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02067-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fraud or
Truth-In-Lending filed over Diversity-Fraud.
Graco Children's Products Inc. manufactures and markets juvenile
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex Rafael Straus, Esq.
Greg Coleman Law
16748 McCormick St
91436-1020
Encino, CA 91436-1020
Tel: (917) 471-1894
Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
HERTZ CORPORATION: Reece Suit Alleges State Wage and Hour Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Reece, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-02991 (N.D. Cal., April
30, 2020), alleges state wage and hour claims arising out of the
Defendant's alleged misclassification of the Plaintiff and the
proposed class as "exempt" employees under certain federal and
state wage laws.
The Plaintiff also seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff
and as "exempt" for purposes of overtime compensation under the
FLSA and also overtime compensation, meal and rest periods, and
other wage and hour requirements under California law. The
Defendant required and/or knowingly permitted the Plaintiff to work
hours considerably in excess of eight hours a day and/or 40 hours a
week. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that it was the
Defendant's policy and practice to require and/or knowingly permit
Appraisers to work overtime hours without receiving overtime
compensation.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Body Damage
Appraiser.
Hertz rents and leases automobiles to individuals and businesses in
California and worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
David Pogrel, Esq.
Afroz Baig, Esq.
LEONARD CARDER, LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 272-0169
Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
Email: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
dpogrel@leonardcarder.com
abaig@leonardcarder.com
HF FOODS: Faces Ponce-Sanchez Suit Over Decline in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Ponce-Sanchez, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HF FOODS GROUP INC., ZHOU MIN NI, XIAO MOU
ZHANG, CAIXUAN XU AND JIAN MING NI, Case No. 2:20-cv-03967 (C.D.
Cal., April 30, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Company and certain of its top officials relating to the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired
HF Foods securities between August 23, 2018, and March 23, 2020,
both dates inclusive,
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) HF Foods engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (ii) HF Foods insiders and related parties were
enriching themselves by misusing shareholder funds; (iii) HF Foods
was "gaming" the FTSE/Russell Index by masking the true number of
shares free floating; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.
On March 23, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
explaining in detail that HF Foods had, among other issues, failed
to disclose: (i) transactions with related-parties; (ii) its
flagrant misuse of shareholder funds; and (iii) its gaming of the
FTSE/Russell Index criteria. On this news, HF Foods' stock price
fell $2.52 per share, or over 20%, to close at $9.80 per share on
March 23, 2020, damaging investors.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired HF Foods securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
HF Foods through its subsidiaries, purports to market and
distribute fresh produce, frozen and dry food products, and
non-food products to Asian restaurants, primarily Chinese
restaurants, and other food service customers throughout the
Southeast, Pacific, and Mountain West regions in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 405-7190
Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
HIMAGINE SOLUTIONS: Underpays & Misclassifies Coders, Johnson Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TYEASHA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HIMAGINE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:20-cv-00574 (E.D. Mo., April 23, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Wage Claim Act, and
Minimum Wage Order.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Coder from in or about
March 2015 to in or about April 2017.
According to the complaint, Defendant employed Coders, including
Plaintiff, to work from home nationwide and uniformly classified
them as non-exempt from overtime compensation under the FLSA.
Defendant required Coders to perform a certain measurable amount of
work each shift, but Defendant paid them only for the underreported
hours, despite knowing that they frequently worked more than 40
hour per week.
The complaint asserts that Defendant willfully failed to:
-- record all of the time that Plaintiff and the Collective
Action Members have worked for its benefit;
-- keep accurate payroll records;
-- credit Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members for all
overtime hours worked; and
-- pay Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members overtime
compensation for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.
Himagine Solutions, Inc. is a privately held Healthcare Information
Management (HIM) outsourcing company in the U.S., supporting 250
clients across the states. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Rd, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Tel: (816)714-7100
Fax: (816)714-7101
Emails: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
- and –
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561)447-8888
Fax: (561)447-8831
Emails: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
HJE SUBS: Lenard Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyojuana Lenard, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. HJE SUBS, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00593 (E.D. Mo., April
30, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
Missouri Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek but the
Defendant failed and refused to pay her at a rate of one and
one-half times her normal rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from September 2019 through
April 2020.
HJE Subs, LLC, operated Jimmy John's franchise restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLFCARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Phone: 314-833-4825
Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
plesko@pwcklegal.com
HOMELINK LLC: Abitbol Hits Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
David Abitbol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Homelink, LLC and Sunnova Energy
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03654, (C.D. Cal., April
21, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory and treble damages
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Sunnova is an energy company that provides, among other things, the
sale of solar panels. They engaged Homelink to tele-market on their
behalf to consumers, engaging in automated telemarketing calls.
Abitbol claims he heard a clicking sound and there was a pause
until an agent joined the call. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Tel: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Nazarchuk Sues Over Faulty Tip-Prone Dressers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizaveta Nazarchuk, individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:20-at-00427 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2020), is brought due to IKEA's
sale of defective tip-prone dressers known as the Kullen dresser,
in violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law and California's False
Advertising Law.
In order to reap substantial profits from the sales of the Product,
IKEA cut corners by, among other things, failing to perform
sufficient product testing to ensure the Product was safe for
consumer use, according to the complaint. As a result, unbeknown to
the Plaintiff at the time of their purchase, and contrary to the
express and implied representations made by IKEA regarding the
Product, the Product does not comply with the furniture industry's
voluntary stability standard, making the Product is defective due
to tip-over and entrapment hazards, and poses a serious danger to
consumers which, if disclosed by IKEA to the Plaintiff, would have
caused the Plaintiff not to purchase or use the Product.
Indeed, in March of 2020, after several reported deaths caused by
the Product, IKEA informed all consumers to "immediately stop
using" the Product because it poses a serious hazard that could
result in personal injury to consumers. As a result, the Plaintiff
has been, and continues to be harmed, by purchasing a defective and
dangerous product that poses a serious hazard that is likely to
result in personal injury to consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California, who
purchased the Product for household use.
IKEA is a company based in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, that
manufactures, markets and/or sells, among other things, a range of
home furnishing products in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mona Amin, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: 800.400.6808
Facsimile: 800.520.5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 283-3814
Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
ILLINOIS: Jail Officers Seek More Pay for Work During COVID-19
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID EVANS III, RASHID MUHAMMAD, BRENDAN KELLY, MONTA SERVANT,
FELISHA PARNELL, TIMOTHY PARKER, JOSEPH TINOCO, and FRANK DONIS on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs,
v. THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff of Cook County, and the COUNTY OF COOK,
ILLINOIS, a unit of local government as joint employer for FLSA
purposes and as indemnitor, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02453
(N.D. Ill., April 21, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum and overtime compensation due to Cook County
Correctional Officers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") for integral and indispensable work activities occurring
during the COVID19 crisis at the Cook County Department of
Corrections ("CCDOC").
Plaintiffs are Cook County Correctional Officers and adult
residents of this judicial district.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cass T. Casper, Esq.
TALON LAW, LLC
105 West Madison Street, Suite 1350
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 351-2478
Email: ctc@talonlaw.com
– and –
Gianna R. Scatchell, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GIANNA SCATCHELL
360 W. Hubbard Street, 1404
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 248-3303
Email: gia@lawfirm.gs
– and –
Christopher Cooper, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER COOPER, INC.
105 West Madison Street, Suite 1350
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 473-2968
Email: cooperlaw3234@gmail.com
– and -
John Lanahan, Esq.
188 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 404-2416
Email: lanahan.john@gmail.com
INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INT'L: Romita Class Suit Ongoing in Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intellipharmaceutics International Inc. said in its Form 20-F
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended November 30, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit in the Superior Court of Justice of
Ontario, initiated by Victor Romita.
On February 21, 2019, the company and its CEO, Dr. Isa Odidi, were
served with a Statement of Claim filed in the Superior Court of
Justice of Ontario for a proposed class action under the Ontario
Class Proceedings Act.
The action was brought by Victor Romita, the proposed
representative plaintiff, on behalf of a class of Canadian persons
who traded Common Shares during the period from February 29, 2016
to July 26, 2017.
The Statement of Claim, under the caption Victor Romita v.
Intellipharmaceutics International Inc. and Isa Odidi, asserted
that the defendants knowingly or negligently made certain public
statements during the relevant period that contained or omitted
material facts concerning Oxycodone ER abuse-deterrent oxycodone
hydrochloride extended release tablets.
The plaintiff alleged that he and the class suffered loss and
damages as a result of their trading in our shares during the
relevant period. The plaintiff seeks, among other remedies,
unspecified damages, legal fees and court and other costs as the
Court may permit.
Intellipharmaceutics said, "The defendants intend to vigorously
defend the action and have filed a Notice of Intent to Defend."
Intellipharmaceutics International Inc. is a Canada-based
pharmaceutical company engaged in the research, development and
manufacture of controlled-release and targeted-release oral solid
dosage drugs.
IZEA WORLDWIDE: Perez Class Action Settlement Wins Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IZEA Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California has issued an order approving the settlement
of the securities class action lawsuit styled, Julian Perez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
IZEA, Inc., et al.
A securities class action lawsuit, Julian Perez, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IZEA, Inc., et al.,
case number 2:18-cv-02784-SVW-GJS was instituted April 4, 2018 in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and certain of its executive officers on behalf
of certain purchasers of its common stock.
The plaintiffs sought to recover damages for investors under
federal securities laws.
The Company estimated and accrued a potential loss of $500,000
relating to its potential liability arising from the Perez lawsuit
and accrued for such amount in its financial statements for the
year ended December 31, 2018 included in this Annual Report.
On April 15, 2019, a stipulation of settlement was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that
contained settlement terms as agreed upon by the parties to the
Perez class action lawsuit described above. The motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement was granted on May 7, 2019.
According to the terms of the settlement, as agreed upon by the
parties, the Company's insurer deposited $800,000 into the
settlement fund and the Company paid the remainder of the Company's
previously accrued insurance deductible of $400,000 into escrow to
be used as settlement funds, inclusive of lead plaintiff awards and
lead counsel fees.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an order approving the settlement of the Perez class action
lawsuit on September 26, 2019, which required that the lawsuit be
dismissed with prejudice.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
IZEA Worldwide, Inc. creates and operates online marketplaces that
connect marketers and content creators. IZEA Worldwide, Inc. was
founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Winter Park, Florida.
JMP GROUP: Has Indemnification Deal Over Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
JMP Group LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the company has entered into an
indemnification agreement with a third party, which agreed to
indemnify the company with regards to a class settlement
agreement.
In December 2019, plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit and the
Company, as defendant, entered into an agreement to settle such
lawsuit by paying $3.0 million (the "Settlement Amount") into a
settlement fund escrow account following the preliminary approval
of such settlement by the court, which approval was granted on
March 9, 2020.
Concurrently with entering into the settlement agreement, the
Company entered into an agreement with a third party indemnifying
the Company with respect to such lawsuit whereby such indemnifying
party would pay the Settlement Amount into a settlement fund escrow
account on behalf of the Company at the time such payment comes due
on March 30, 2020.
JMP Group said, "The timely performance of these two agreements is
expected to result in no impact on the results of operations or
cash flows of the Company. The indemnification payment receivable
and settlement liability have been separately recorded and included
in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition within other
assets and other liabilities."
JMP Group LLC offers investment banking and asset management
services. The Company provides securities trading and equity
research services to institutional and corporate clients, and
alternative asset management products and services to institutional
investors, high net-worth individuals, and their own account. The
company is based in San Francisco, California.
JOHNSON UTILITIES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Castillo Bribery Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants George Harry Johnson, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling issued in the lawsuit styled Tisha Castillo, et al. v.
George Johnson, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04688-DLR, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges bribery of the Chairman of the Arizona Corporation
Commission by George Johnson, the owner of Johnson Utilities LLC,
to allow the Company to charge excessive rates, and the illicit
transfer of the ill-begotten revenue through a network of
affiliated entities.
Plaintiffs Tisha Castillo, Karen Christian, and Steve Pratt were
ratepayers for water and wastewater services provided by Johnson
Utilities. Plaintiffs allege that Johnson, Johnson Utilities,
Johnson International, Incorporated, and lobbyist James Franklin
Norton violated the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations
Act by conspiring to unlawfully raise utility rates through
racketeering, wire fraud, and bribery of a public servant. The
Plaintiffs also allege that the Bribery Defendants were unjustly
enriched, and that Johnson Utilities violated the Arizona Consumer
Fraud Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Tisha Castillo, et al. v. George
Johnson, et al., Case No. 20-15814, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by May 27, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on June 26, 2020;
-- Appellants BAJ Living Trust, BARJO LLC, Chris Johnson
Family Trust dated September 14, 2000, December Companies,
Inc., George H. Johnson and Jana S. Johnson Revocable Trust
dated July 9, 1987, Hunt MGT LLC, Barbara Johnson, Chris
Johnson, George Harry Johnson, Jana Johnson, Jane Doe
Johnson, John Doe Johnson, Johnson International, Inc.,
Johnson Utilities LLC, James Franklin Norton, Pinetop Trust
II, Roadrunner Transit LLC and Ultra Management LLC's
opening brief is due on August 5, 2020;
-- Appellees Tisha Castillo, Karen Christian and Steve Pratt's
answering brief is due on September 8, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees TISHA CASTILLO, et al., on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated are represented by:
Jeffrey J. Goulder, Esq.
Stefan M. Palys, Esq.
STINSON MORRISON HECKER, LLP
1850 N Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
Telephone: (602) 212-8531
E-mail: jeffrey.goulder@stinson.com
stefan.palys@stinson.com
- and -
Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
KRISLOV LAW
20 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 606-0500
- and -
Brandon R. Nagy, Esq.
STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 212-8537
Defendants-Appellants GEORGE HARRY JOHNSON, et al., are represented
by:
Mark C. Dangerfield, Esq.
GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
2575 East Camelback Road, Suite 1100
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 530-8000
E-mail: mark.dangerfield@gknet.com
- and -
Mark Andrew Fuller, Esq.
Hannah Porter, Esq.
GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
2575 East Camelback Road, Suite 1100
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 530-8000
- and -
Christian C.M. Beams, Esq.
Daniel E. Fredenberg, Esq.
FREDENBERG BEAMS
4747 N. 7th Street, Suite 402
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Telephone: (602) 595-9299
- and -
William F. King, esq.
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 274-1100
E-mail: bking@bffb.com
JP MORGAN: TDD Dallas LLC Suit Transferred to N. D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as TDD Dallas LLC and Heavy Movers LLC, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, Defendant, was transferred from the 101st
District Court, Dallas County with the assigned Case No.
DC-20-06259 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas (Dallas) on May 5, 2020, and assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01117-X.
The case type of the suit is stated as Contract: Other Contract.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association provides investment and
banking services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peyton J Healey, Esq.
HEDRICK KRING, PLLC
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4650
DALLAS, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 880-9600
Fax: (214) 481-1844
Email: peyton@hedrickkring.com
- and -
Courtney E Jackson, Esq.
HEDRICK KRING, PLLC
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4650
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 880-9600
- and -
Jacob B Kring, Esq.
Hedrick Kring PLLC
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4650
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 880-9600
Fax: (214) 481-1844
Email: Jacob@HedrickKring.com
- and -
Joshua L Hedrick, Esq.
Hedrick Kring PLLC
1700 Pacific Avenue, Ste 4650
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 880-9600
Fax: (214) 481-1844
Email: Josh@HedrickKring.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher S Dodrill, Esq.
Greenberg Traurig
2200 Ross Ave, Suite 5200
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 665-3681
Fax: (214) 665-3601
Email: dodrillc@gtlaw.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Prioritizes Chosen Clients' PPP Loan, Ladaga Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LADAGA VENTURES LLC, a Colorado limited liability company v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a federally chartered national bank,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01204 (D. Colo., April 29, 2020), seeks to stop
the Defendant's conduct of ensuring that the applications of its
favored clients would be prioritized at the expense of the small
business customers the Paycheck Protection Program was designed to
benefit.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's conduct does not only
helped curry favor with the clients most important to Chase's
bottom line, but would, because of the high loan amounts, generate
more loan origination fees for Chase with less effort and expense.
As a result, only approximately six percent of Chase's 300,000
Business Banking customers that tried to apply for PPP loans were
approved, while nearly 100% of Chase's large, Commercial Banking
clients were approved, the Plaintiff adds.
Worse, Chase concealed from the public that it was prioritizing the
applications on a basis other than first-come, first served,
according to the complaint. As a result, thousands of small
businesses, including the Plaintiff, trusted that Chase would
process the applications in the order in which the applications
were submitted and that they had an equal chance to have their
application approved. Had Chase disclosed its self-serving
prioritization, Plaintiff could have, and would have, submitted
their PPP applications to other financial institutions that were
actually processing applications on a first-come, first-served
basis, says the complaint.
In the past two months, COVID-19 has destroyed national commerce
and shuttered countless businesses across virtually all sectors.
Responding to mass layoffs occurring around the country--with the
threat of far more to come--Congress created a program that would
quickly distribute money to small businesses like the Plaintiff on
a first-come, first-served basis. Time was of the essence.
The legislature's plan to aid small businesses, the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act), was enacted
into law on March 27, 2020. In its initial form, the Small Business
Administration's PPP authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable
loans to small businesses to cover payroll and other expenses. This
money was meant to provide a critical and immediate life raft to
businesses, who have been shut down pursuant to their state's "stay
at home" order or have been effectively shuttered due to a dramatic
drop-off in business.
Speed and simplicity were to be the hallmarks of the PPP. The
intent of the legislation was that small businesses and sole
proprietorships would be able to apply through SBA-approved lenders
as soon as the application window opened and wait their turn to be
approved on a first-come, first-served basis.
Ladaga Ventures is a small business that provides cupcake
decorating kits, baking directions, and tutorials.
Chase is a federally chartered national bank with its main office
in Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ariane M. Ice, Esq.
Thomas Erskine Ice, Esq.
ICE LEGAL, P.A.
20 Portsmouth Ave., Suite 1, No. 225
Stratham, NH 03885
Telephone: (603) 242-1503
E-mail: ariane.ice@icelegal.com
KNOXVILLE PALLET: Lumpkin Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Lumpkin, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. KNOXVILLE PALLET RECYCLERS, INC., a Tennessee
Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00193 (E.D. Tenn., April 30, 2020),
is brought against the Defendant to seek damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff has not received one and one-half times his regular
hourly rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 within weekly pay
periods. The Defendant knew the Plaintiff performed work in excess
40 hours per week within weekly pay periods that required overtime
compensation to be paid. Nonetheless, they operated under a common
policy and practice to deprive the Plaintiff of such overtime
compensation, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Lumpkin was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee.
Knoxville Pallet Recyclers, Inc., is located in Knoxville,
Tennessee, and buys, builds, rebuilds and sells pallets to
customers in the region.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
LAREDO PETROLEUM: Underpays Oilfield Workers, Dyches Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
HEYWARD DYCHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LAREDO PETROLEUM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:20-cv-00100 (W.D. Tex., April 23, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a day rate oilfield worker
from January 2018 to November 2019.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Class Members were
required to report at any time of day or night with little to no
notice, were not free to turn down orders from Defendant, and were
required to drop everything and go when they got the call from
Defendant even on scheduled days off and holidays. However, they
were paid on a day rate payment scheme without overtime pay despite
often working 12 or more hours a day for weeks at a time.
Laredo Petroleum, Inc. is a publicly traded energy company with
operations currently focused in the Permian Basin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713)877-8788
Fax: (713)877-8065
Emails: rburch@brucknerburch.com
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
LIONDESK LLC: Gravori Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Acts
--------------------------------------------------------------
PEYMAN GRAVORI, individually and on behalf of others similary
situated, Plaintiff, v. LIONDESK LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00766-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal., April 23, 2020) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff for damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of LionDesk LLC, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.
In or around June of 2017, Plaintiff reached out to a real estate
salesperson, Claudia Ilcken, expressing an interest in purchasing a
residential property.
Upon information and belief, at the time, Ms. Ilcken worked under
Better Net Inc. d/b/a Keller Williams Realty Coastal Properties, a
licensed Calfornia real estate brokerage corporation. Plaintiff
provided her with his contact information including his cellular
telephone number but never express his written consent to receive
telemarketing calls or texts utilizing an automatic telephone
dialing system ("ATDS").
According to the complaint, Ms. Ilcken entered into a contract with
Defendant, separate and apart from her communications and
relationship with Plaintiff. Under the contract, Ms. Ilcken
uploaded her clients' phone numbers, including Plaintiff's, into
Defendant's database. Defendant then began sending Plaintiff
unsolicited, unwanted marketing text messages to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone.
LionDesk LLC is a California-based customer relationship management
and transaction management platform for sales professionals serving
multiple industries, including real estate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
– and –
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
Email: yana@kazlg.com
– and –
Kevin J. Cole, Esq.
PARKER COLE, P.C.
6700 Fallbrook Ave, Suite 207
West Hills, CA 91307
Telephone: (818) 292-8800
Facsimile: (818) 292-8337
LOOMIS ARMORED: $1.5M Myers Labor Suit Deal Gets Final Court Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAKEERA MYERS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOOMIS ARMORED US, LLC,
Defendant, Docket No. 3:18-cv-00532-FDW-DSC (W.D. N.C.), Judge
Frank D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, (i) granted the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Collective
and Class Action Settlement; (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses; and (iii)
denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Service Awards.
Plaintiff Myers worked as an Armored Service Technician ("AST") for
Defendant Loomis. She asserts claims on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"); and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"). She
claims that the Defendant failed to pay its ASTs, including armed
drivers, armed messengers, and armed guards, all wages owed,
including overtime at a rate of one-and-one-half their regular rate
of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. The
Plaintiff also alleges that Loomis allegedly maintained a corporate
policy of deducting the costs of bulletproof vests and firearms
from employees' wages, without obtaining the employees' prior
written authorization as well as failing to pay employees all
promised wages, including compensation at a rate of
one-and-one-half their regular rate of pay for work performed in
excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendant denies any liability or
wrongdoing of any kind under the FLSA and NCWHA and pled various
defenses.
In addition to extensive and meaningful discovery, the case has
already involved extensive litigation over a variety of motions.
While full, class-wide merits discovery was nearly complete with
dispositive motion briefing underway along with trial preparation,
the parties engaged in substantial negotiations and briefing prior
to the grant of the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional
Certification and Class Certification. Soon after the Plaintiff's
Motion was granted, the Parties participated in a mandatory
mediation pursuant to the Court's order . Prior to mediation, the
Defendants provided to the Plaintiffs the necessary time and
payroll data for them to conduct a data analysis and calculate
possible damages for them and other similarly situated
individuals.
On Sept. 16, 2019, the parties met with mediator Hunter Hughes III
at his offices in Atlanta, Georgia, a nationally recognized class-
and collective-action wage and hour mediator, who served as
mediator by agreement of the Parties. At the mediation, the
Parties reached an agreement in principle. After further
negotiation, the Parties reached the Settlement Agreement described
below on Nov. 4, 2019.
On Nov. 4, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement consistent with the Parties'
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, to (1) grant preliminary
approval of the proposed class and collective action settlement;
(2) approve the appointment of Angeion Group as settlement
administrator; and (3) approve the proposed notice of the
settlement and claim forms.
On Dec. 16, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved, subject to
further consideration thereof at the Final Approval Hearing, (1)
the Parties' Stipulation and Settlement Agreement; (2) the proposed
Notices for mailing, consistent with the procedures outlined in the
Parties' Stipulation and Settlement Agreement; and (3) the
appointment of Angeion as the Settlement Administrator.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 16, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tqyskrj from Leagle.com.
Also, consistent with the Parties' Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement, the Court set the deadline for members of the certified
class to submit claim forms, opt out of the settlement, or submit
an objection. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court scheduled a fairness hearing for April 8, 2020
at 9:30 a.m., to determine whether the proposed Settlement
Agreement is fair.
Prior to distribution of notice to the class, the Parties
discovered that the requisite Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA")
notices were not sent to the appropriate officials within 10 days
of Plaintiff filing the proposed agreement with the Court, as set
out in the agreement. Thus, on Dec. 30, 2019, the Parties filed a
Joint Motion to Mail Class Action Fairness Notice by Jan. 9, 2020.
The Court granted the motion the following day.
On Jan. 14, 2020, the Parties filed a joint motion for extension of
time to extend the notice period from Jan. 15, 2020 to Jan. 22,
2020, and clarification of three items related to the settlement
notice process. On Jan. 15, 2020, the Court granted the Parties'
joint motion.
Finally, Angeion was appointed to serve as the neutral, third-party
Settlement Administrator in the case, and consistent with the
Parties' Settlement Agreement, the Court ordered and authorized
Angeion to perform the administrative duties outlined in its Dec.
16, 2019 and Jan. 15, 2020 Orders.
Having considered the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval, their Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Expenses, their Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Service Awards, and the supporting declarations, the
oral argument presented at the fairness hearing, and the complete
record in the action, for the reasons set forth therein and stated
on the record at the April 8, 2020 fairness hearing, and for good
cause shown, Judge Whitney granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Final Approval, and finally approved the settlement as set
forth in the Parties' Settlement Agreement.
For settlement purposes only, the Settlement Classes are finally
certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Judge approved the
FLSA collective Action settlement and the Rule 23 class action
settlement.
He granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and awards
Class Counsel $500,000, which is one-third of the Gross Maximum
Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, less the amount of additional administration costs
incurred by the Settlement Administrator, which are $11,949.98.
Thus, the total amount to be awarded as attorneys' fees is
$488,050.02. He also awarded the Class Counsel reimbursement of
$35,000 in litigation costs or expenses in addition to fees in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The
attorneys' fees and the amount in reimbursement of costs and
expenses, including but not limited to costs of administration,
will be paid from the Gross Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The Judge finds reasonable an award for Named Plaintiff Shakeera
Myers in the amount of $50,000 for settlement of her Title VII
claims and $20,000 for her service award as Named Plaintiff/Class
Representative for the asserted FLSA/Rule 23 collective/class wage
and hour claims; $12,500 for opt-in Plaintiff Trevon Conyers for
his service award as the first early opt-in plaintiff and due to
his cooperation and participation in discovery, pre-certification
deposition, and preparing a declaration for conditional
certification; $5,000 each as service awards for opt-in Plaintiffs
Craig Abbott, Michael Smith, Shamekia Butler, and Charles Peppers
(due to their early cooperation and participation in discovery,
depositions, providing declarations, documents, and information in
furtherance of mediation); $4,000 as a service award for opt-in
Plaintiff Marvin Blue for his cooperation and participation in
discovery and sitting for a deposition; $3,000 as a service award
for Kenneth Brooks for his cooperation and participation in
discovery and making himself available for a deposition; and $2,500
each as service awards for Richard Jackson and Berry Packer for
their cooperation and participation in discovery. These amounts
will be paid from the Gross Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the
"Effective Date" of the settlement will be as defined in the
Settlement Agreement. The Order will constitute a judgment for
purposes of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Judge confirmed the Court's its prior Order appointing Angeion
Group as the Settlement Administrator in the case. Consistent with
the Court's prior Order appointing Angeion as Settlement
Administrator, Angeion will determine the total amount of its
services and expenses in connection with the administration of the
settlement in the action prior to the distribution of any amounts
form the Qualified Settlement Fund it established in connection
with this Settlement.
Within 15 days after the Effective Date as defined in the
Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Administrator will establish
and maintain a qualifying designated settlement fund ("QSF") in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Within 30 days after the Effective Date as defined in the
Settlement Agreement, the Defendant will remit the Gross Maximum
Settlement Amount of $1.5 million to the Settlement Administrator
to fund the Qualified Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms
of the Settlement Agreement.
Within five business days after Defendant remits the Gross Maximum
Settlement Amount to the Settlement Administrator to fund the QSF,
the Administrator will issue the Service Awards to the Plaintiffs
and the Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses by making the following
payments in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement:
a. Paying the Class Counsel one-third of the Gross Maximum
Settlement Amount ($500,000); Reimbursing the Class Counsel for
$35,000 in litigation costs and expenses in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement; and
b. Paying the service awards in the amounts, which
cumulatively total $114,500, in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
Within 21 days after the Defendant remits the Gross Maximum
Settlement Amount to the Settlement Administrator to fund the QSF,
or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Settlement Administrator
will issue payment of the Individual Settlement Amounts to the
Participating FLSA Collective Members and Participating Rule 23
Settlement Class Members, provided they did not opt out or exclude
themselves from the Settlement, along with a letter approved by the
Class Counsel and the Defense Counsel explaining that the
Settlement has received final approval and the claims are released
by the recipient, along with the URL for a website where the
recipient can access a copy of the order granting final approval in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Administrator will be entitled to payment from the
Gross Maximum Settlement Amount, for all reasonable costs
associated with the Settlement Administrator's work under the
Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, in the event the reasonable costs of the Settlement
Administrator exceed $25,441, the Settlement Administrator will
file a declaration with the Court explaining the basis for the
costs above the $25,441. Since the reasonable costs of the
Settlement Administrator exceeded the amount, the Settlement
Administrator filed a declaration with the Court explaining the
basis for the costs above the $25,441. Upon review, the Judge
approved reasonable costs of the Settlement Administrator in the
total amount of $37,390.98 (i.e., $11,949.98 above the $25,441
amount). The additional cost will be taken out of the award for
attorneys' fees rather than the Plaintiffs' share of the Gross
Maximum Settlement Amount.
The Judge directed that the settlement funds be distributed in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. He further
directed the entry of final judgment in the case and dismissed the
action with prejudice in its entirety in accordance with the terms
of the Settlement Agreement. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to enter Final Judgment in the action adjudicating all the
claims and all the Parties' rights and liabilities pursuant to Rule
54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Whitney (i) granted the Unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of the Collective and Class Action
Settlement; (ii) granted with modification the Unopposed Motion for
Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses; and,
(iii) given its preliminary nature, denied as moot the Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Service Awards. The denial has
no effect whatsoever on the validity or award of the service awards
under the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Order granting final
approval is available at https://is.gd/XzPxQR from Leagle.com.
LQ MANAGEMENT: Underpays Maids & Housekeepers, Tribbit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
SERENA TRIBBIT, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LQ MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01271-EEF-JVM (E.D. La., April 23, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a maid and/or housekeeper
from approximately September 2015 through October 2018.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Class Members were
required by Defendant to work more than 40 hours per workweek and
compensated them on an hourly basis and only their regular rate.
But, Defendant allegedly has a common policy of not paying them at
a rate of one and one-half times their regular pay for the overtime
hours they worked.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and the Class Members have
suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of income and other
damages. Thus, they seek unpaid overtime pay, an additional and
equal amount as liquidated damages, any pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fees, expert
fees, and other costs and expenses.
LQ Management, LLC operates the La Quinta Inn located at 3100 S
I-10 Service Road East, in Metairie, Louisiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
Barry W. Sartin, Esq.
CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY,
RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
Metairie, LA 70001
Tel: (504)833-5600
Fax: (504)613-4528
Website: www.chehardy.com
MARTIN MARIETTA: Underpays Manual Laborers, Smith et al Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAMES K. SMITH, ORZA FERGUSON, GAYMON SAMPSON, and CURTIS
McQUINN on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-00080-CDL (M.D. Ga., April 21, 2020) arises from
Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant within the last three years
to perform non-exempt manual labor tasks at Defendant's Junction
City Quarry in Talbot County, Goergia.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs were required to work over
and above 40 hours for most weeks in the past three years and
regularly performed additional work on the weekends.
The complaint asserts that Defendant has had a uniform policy
and/or practice of consistently requiring the non-exempt employees
who work with heavy equipment to prepare the equipment without
regular or overtime compensation for the last three years.
Allegedly, Defendant's representatives often and regularly
improperly changed Plaintiffs work time entries by reducing the
hours worked on the time system.
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. owns and operates the Junction City
Quarry, at 5291 Junction City Highway, Junction City, Georgia,
31812.
Junction City Quarry produces Aggregates which consist of
screenings, concrete sand, mortar sand, asphalt sand, rock dust and
rock powder for use in various building and construction sites
across the Southeast. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carter P. Schondelmayer, Esq.
PAGE, SCRANTOM, SPROUSE,
TUCKER & FORD, P.C.
P.O. Box 1199
Columbus, GA 31902
Tel: (706)324-0251
Email: cps@psstf.com
MCCLATCHY CO: Still Defends Fresno and Sacramento Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company 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 29, 2019, that the company continues to
defend the class action styled Becerra v. The McClatchy Company
("Fresno case") and a substantially similar lawsuit styled Sawin v.
The McClatchy Company ("Sacramento case") related to mileage
reimbursement.
In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a class action
lawsuit against the company and The Fresno Bee in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned Becerra
v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the carriers
were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking mileage
reimbursement.
In February 2009, a substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The
McClatchy Company, involving similar allegations was filed by
carriers of The Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Sacramento County. The class
consists of roughly 5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500
carriers in the Fresno case.
The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified restitution
for mileage reimbursement.
With respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage
and hour claims were dismissed, and the only remaining claim is an
equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California
Civil Code.
In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were
dismissed, and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for
mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.
The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three
separate phases, independent contractor status, liability and
restitution. On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento
case issued a tentative decision following the first phase, finding
that the carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee
during the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were
misclassified as independent contractors. The company objected to
the tentative decision, but the court ultimately adopted it as
final.
In June 2016, The McClatchy Company was dismissed from the lawsuit,
leaving The Sacramento Bee as the sole defendant. On August 30,
2017, the court issued a statement of decision ruling that the
court would not hold a phase two trial but would, instead, assume
liability from the evidence previously submitted and from the
independent contractor agreements. The company objected to this
decision, but the court adopted it as final. The third phase began
on June 20, 2019, and is ongoing.
The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two separate
phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor status and
liability for mileage reimbursement and the second phase was
designated to address restitution, if any. The first phase of the
Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and concluded in
late March 2015. On April 14, 2016, the court in the Fresno case
issued a statement of final decision in favor of the company and
The Fresno Bee. Accordingly, there will be no second phase. The
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on November 10, 2016.
McClatchy said, "We continue to defend these actions vigorously and
expect that we will ultimately prevail. As a result, we have not
established a reserve in connection with the cases. While we
believe that a material impact on our consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows from these claims is
unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a
possibility exists that future adverse rulings or unfavorable
developments could result in future charges that could have a
material impact. We have and will continue to periodically
reexamine our estimates of probable liabilities and any associated
expenses and make appropriate adjustments to such estimates based
on experience and developments in litigation."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The McClatchy Company provides news and advertising services in
digital and print formats in the United States. Its publications
include the Miami Herald, The Kansas City Star, The Sacramento Bee,
The Charlotte Observer, The (Raleigh) News and Observer, The (Fort
Worth) Star-Telegram, and The (Durham, NC) Herald-Sun. The
McClatchy Company was founded in 1857 and is headquartered in
Sacramento, California.
MEET GROUP: Mowry Securities Suit Challenges Buyout by eHarmony
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Mowry, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE MEET GROUP, INC., JEAN CLIFTON, GEOFFREY COOK,
CHRISTOPHER FRALIC, SPENCER RHODES, KEITH RICHMAN, BEDI SINGH,
JASON WHITT, Case No. 2:20-cv-02092-KSM (E.D. Pa., April 30, 2020),
is brought public on behalf of all other public shareholders of the
Company against it and its Board of Directors for breaches of
fiduciary duties and violation of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 in conjunction with the proposed buyout and acquisition of
Meet Group by eHarmony Holding, Inc., NCG-NUCOM GROUP SE, and Holly
Merger Sub, Inc.
On April 2, 2020, in violation of the Exchange Act and their
fiduciary duties, the Company filed a Proxy Statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Form PREM14A. The Plaintiff
contends that the Proxy contains numerous material misstatements
and omissions. The Proxy exposes some details of the highly
conflicted sales process, but fails to disclose material facts
concerning the Proposed Acquisition--preventing shareholders from
casting an informed vote for or against the Proposed Acquisition.
For example, the Proxy omits and/or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process;
(b) Meet Group's financial projections; and (c) the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation exercises that purport to
support the so-called "fairness opinion" provided by Meet Group's
financial advisor, BofA Securities, Inc. Moreover, review of the
Proxy further establishes that the price offered to Meet Group
shareholders is inadequate and cannot be supported by a properly
prepared valuation of the Company.
In approving the Proposed Transaction, the Individual Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duty of candor and duty to maximize
shareholder value by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell to NuCom
Group without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class
members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under
the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the Proposed Transaction to
benefit themselves and/or NuCom Group without regard for Meet
Group's public shareholders, says the complaint.
Accordingly, this action seeks to enjoin the shareholder vote
relating to the Proposed Transaction and compel the Individual
Defendants to properly exercise their fiduciary duties to Meet
Group's shareholders.
The Plaintiff has been, and continues to be a shareholder of Meet
Group common stock.
Meet Group operates a portfolio of mobile social entertainment
applications to meet the need for human connection worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: (610) 667-6200
Fax: (610) 667-9029
Email: mackerman@brodskysmith.com
rcardona@brodskysmith.com
MICHIGAN: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Kensu Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TEMUJIN KENSU, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10175 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Gershwin A. Drain of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.
On Jan. 16, 2018, Plaintiff Kensu filed the instant action against
several Defendants, including Michigan Department of Corrections
("MDOC"); Aramark Correctional Services, LLC; and Trinity Services
Group, Inc., on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals. The Plaintiff's action involves a dispute concerning
the adequacy of prison meals within the MDOC. He is the only named
Plaintiff in the Second Amended Complaint. He is currently
incarcerated at the Macomb Correctional Facility in New Haven,
Michigan. The Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on Nov.
2, 2018.
Pursuant to the Court's May 29, 2019 Order on Aramark's and
Trinity's Motions to Dismiss, the Plaintiff's suit includes claims
of violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 under the Eighth Amendment
for cruel and unusual punishment and inadequate hiring, training
supervision, and/or discipline (Counts I and II) against each
Defendant, as well as a claim for breach of implied warranty
against Aramark and Trinity (Count VIII). The Court dismissed the
Plaintiff's remaining claims in his Second Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiff now seeks class and subclass certification under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In his Motion, the Plaintiff
asserts that he is "presently being denied a diet adequate to
sustain normal health. He explains that he has filed "numerous
grievances" alleging the inadequacy of the prisoner diet. He
argues that he adequately represents a class of individuals who are
denied a diet adequate to sustain normal health.
Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that he is also a member of a
subclass of individuals who have serious medical needs and require
an alternate or 'special' diet that derives from the standard
prisoner diet. Specifically, he indicates that he suffers from a
variety of medical conditions which require that he be provided a
specialized diet in order to mitigate his serious medical needs.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff initially moved the Court to certify a
class and subclass defined as: All current and former incarcerated
persons in prisons under the direction of the MDOC who were
provided a diet which was inadequate to maintain normal health.
The Plaintiff further seeks certification of a subclass of
incarcerated persons under the direct supervision of the MDOC who
were not provided a diet commensurate with their medically
documented special needs.
The Plaintiff asserts that the proposed class and subclass meet the
Rule 23(a) and each of the 23(b)(3) requirements.
The Defendants each opposed the Plaintiff's Motion. They argue
that the Plaintiff cannot satisfy his burden of proof for
certification of either his proposed class or subclass. MDOC also
argues that the Court should consider an exhaustion issue since it
pleaded exhaustion as an affirmative defense. Aramark and Trinity
further assert that the Plaintiff's remaining claims against them
are "individualized monetary claims" for damages subject to the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) and are thus not suited for
certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) or Rule 23(b)(2).
A hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion was held on March 23, 2020.
Judge Drain does not yet opine on whether MDOC can carry its
"considerable summary-judgment burden of showing non-exhaustion."
He does take notice that the provided logs of prisoner grievances
in the attached exhibits are insufficient for it to decide whether
the grievances contain allegations related to Plaintiff's remaining
claims at this juncture. Accordingly, he denotes MDOC's
non-trivial concerns about exhaustion before conducting its
analysis of the amended class and subclass for certification.
Next, Judge Drain finds that the Plaintiff's amended class and
subclass definition, as further defined by the Court with
applicable time periods, is ascertainable and can be determined
based on objective criteria. Despite having an ascertainable class
and subclass, though, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification must be denied.
Judge Drain finds that an attempt to certify either the proposed
class or subclass would have to establish that the health diversity
of all prisoners, or prisoners for the subclass, is not so great
that all prisoners are at a "similar risk of a similar degree of
harm" in consuming the standard fare diet. Further, he determines
that the same proof cannot be used to determine the sufficiency of
any particular prisoners' diet, or whether any of the prisoners'
health, has been adversely affected from the standard fare diet in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Rather, the nature of the
injuries allegedly suffered by each prisoner in the class and
subclass, relative to the purported deficiencies in the standard
fare diet, would require individualized inquiries.
In sum, the individualized inquiries and potential variances of the
degrees of harm from the standard fare diet prevent the Court from
determining that the Plaintiff's proposed class of approximately
40,000 prisoners satisfies the commonality requirement under Rule
23(a)(2). The Plaintiff is unable to establish the prerequisites
of Rule 23(a) as the class and subclass are currently defined.
The decision not to certify the proposed class and subclass does
not preclude Plaintiff from pursuing his remaining claims in his
individual capacity. Pursuant to the Court's May 29, 2019 Order,
Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against the Defendants (Counts
II and III) and implied warranty claim against Defendants Aramark
and Trinity (Count IX) will proceed. Accordingly, while Judge
Drain concludes that the Plaintiff is unable to satisfy the
procedural requirements for class certification, he recognizes the
gravity of resolving the Plaintiff's remaining claims concerning
the adequacy of the standard fare diet he receives in the MDOC.
For the reasons he articulated, Judge Drain denied the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification. The Court will meet and confer as
to how to best proceed with the Plaintiff's individual claims
asserted in the action. A Status Conference was scheduled for May
8, 2020 at 11:30 a.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/KG2IV4 from Leagle.com.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Greenfeld Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management Inc. The case is styled as Malka F Greenfeld,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02079 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management Inc. is a financial institution in San
Diego, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
Stein Saks PLLC
285 Passaic st
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Faces Pflum Suit Over Failure to Secure PII
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Pflum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MUNSON HEALTHCARE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00375 (W.D. Mich.,
April 30, 2020), is brought for claims of negligence per se,
negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Michigan Data Breach
Prompt Notification Law, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and
breach of implied contract, and seeks damages, injunctive relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to implement
adequate technical safeguards and train its employees to protect
the confidential information of its patients. Because of this, the
Defendant allowed the sensitive personal information of at least
75,000 of Defendant's patients to be accessed by unauthorized third
parties. This personal information included the Defendant's
patients' financial information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank
account information), medical information (including treatment and
diagnostic information, as well as insurance information), personal
information (e.g., Social Security numbers and addresses), and/or
other protected health information as defined by the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
On February 26, 2020, the Defendant announced the Breach, which it
stated it "discovered on January 16, 2020." On the date of the 2020
Notice, the Defendant mailed notification letters to patients
impacted or potentially impacted by the Breach. The Plaintiff
received one of these letters in early March, though she had
learned of the breach from local news services at the end of
February.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's security failures
enabled the criminals behind the Breach to steal PII from the
Defendant's computer systems and put the Plaintiff at serious and
ongoing risk of identity theft. The Plaintiff adds that the breach
was caused and enabled by Defendant's violation of its obligations
under the law and failure to abide by industry standards and its
own policies in regard to implementing adequate security measures.
Had the Defendant implemented adequate security measures, the
Breach could have been prevented or mitigated, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual, who works at an after school
program in Traverse City, Michigan.
The Defendant operates nine hospitals in northern Michigan,
providing healthcare to approximately half-a-million people.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
8225 Moorsbridge
P.O. Box 4010
Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010
Phone: (269) 321-2311
Email: jyoung@kehb.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520
Fax: (202) 800-2730
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (202) 470-3520
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
NORTEK SECURITY: Hayward Files Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nortek Security and
Control, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Hayward, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nortek
Security and Control, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00854-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal., May 6, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to the FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales.
Nortek Security and Control, LLC offers security and control
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 338-1100
Fax: (619) 338-1101
Email: tblood@bholaw.com
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Fabricant
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD, LLC and INTEGRATED
PAYMENT TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03656 (C.D.
Cal., April 21, 2020) is a class action complaint against
Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), a federal statute enacted in response to widespread
public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance
telemarketing practices.
The Defendants' strategy for generating new customers involves the
use of an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to solicit
business. The Plaintiff received an automated telemarketing call
from Integrated Payment Technologies on behalf of North American
Bancard on February 26, 2020. The dialing system used by Integrated
Payment Technologies also has the capacity to store telephone
numbers in a database and dial them automatically with no human
intervention. As a result, the system that sent automated calls to
Plaintiff qualifies as an ATDS pursuant to TCPA.
Plaintiff's privacy has been violated by the described
telemarketing robocalls from, or on behalf of, Defendants. The
calls were an annoying, harassing nuisance. The calls occupied
their cellular telephone lines, rendering them unavailable for
legitimate communication.
North American Bancard, LLC is a payment processor provider for
businesses based in Michigan.
Integrated Payment Technologies LLC is a Georgia company
headquartered in Georgia that provides payment technology
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
RACHEL E. KAUFMAN KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Banuelos Hits Share Drop from Hyped Forecast
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Banuelos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd., Frank
J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-21685,
(S.D. Fla., April 22, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Norwegian is a global cruise company which operates the Norwegian
Cruise Line, Oceania Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven
Seas Cruises brands. Its stock is traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "NCLH."
In December of 2019, the spread of COVID-19 has had a significant
impact on the cruise industry, with reports of canceled trips and
half-empty ships. Banuelos claims that Norwegian's financial
results for the quarter and full year ended December 31, 2019
discussed positive outlooks for the company in spite of the
COVID-19 outbreak.
On this news, the Norwegian's shares fell $5.47 per share or
approximately 26.7% to close at $15.03 per share on March 11, 2020.
Banuelos owns Norwegian Cruise stock. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
Tel: (886) 849-7545
Email: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com
- and -
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jlopiano@pomlaw.com
NYCDOE: Discriminates Against Nursing Mothers, O'Leary Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON O'LEARY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION; MICHAEL RUBENS BLOOMBERG, as Former Mayor - City of New
York; BILL de BLASIO, as Mayor - City of New York; MARTHA H. HIRST,
as Former Commissioner - Department of Citywide Administrative
Services; EDNA WELLS HANDY, as Former Commissioner — Department
of Citywide Administrative Services; STACEY CUMBERBATCH, as Former
Commissioner - Department of Citywide Administrative Services;
LISETTE CAMILO, as Commissioner - Department of Citywide
Administrative Services; JOEL I. KLEIN, as Former Chancellor - New
York City Department of Education; CATHLEEN P. BLACK, as Former
Chancellor - New York City Department of Education; DENNIS M.
WALCOTT, as Former Chancellor - New York City Department of
Education; CARMEN FARINA, as Former Chancellor - New York City
Department of Education; RICHARD A. CARRANZA, as Chancellor - New
York City Department of Education; NICHOLAS MELE, as Principal,
Edwin Markham Intermediate School 51 and JESSE ANN PIRRAGLIA, as
Assistant Principal, Edwin Markham Intermediate School 51,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01911 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act of 1978; the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the New
York State Executive Law, and the New York City Administrative Code
Sections 8-107, as amended by the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of
2014.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent similarly-situated female
employees who have or will be employed with Defendant New York City
Department of Education (NYCDOE) and assigned to the NYCDOE from
August 15, 2007, to the date of judgment that have the need or
chooses to express milk during work hours. The Plaintiff alleges
that NYCDOE co-workers, supervisors, managers and/or executives
have engaged in a pattern or practice of pregnancy discrimination
against female employees including treating nursing mothers
differently from similarly-situated non-nursing employees that
resulted in unequal and adverse treatment, regularly failing to
make reasonable accommodations for nursing mothers that required
medically necessary absences, and implementing discretionary,
subjective protocols and treatment that disfavors nursing mothers
and their need or choice to express milk during work hours. The
Plaintiff claims that she and Class members were also subjected to
hostility, ridicule, special rules, strict scrutiny and retaliatory
actions including denying denial of reasonable accommodations,
refusing to participate in the cooperative dialogue surrounding an
accommodation request.
New York City Department of Education is the department of the
government of New York City that manages the city's public school
system. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Sanders, Esq.
THE SANDERS FIRM PC
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 652-2782
Facsimile: (212) 652-2783
OCEAN CC: Banegas Sues over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, LESLY P. BANEGAS, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. OCEAN CC, LLC d/b/a FORTE DEI MARMI,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-21644-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2020)
arises from Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a full-time, non-exempted,
salaried Pastry cook from approximately July 1, 2019 to March 15,
2019.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff always worked more than 40
hours in a week period and was paid for all hours worked at her
regular rate only. Allegedly, Defendant willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half her
regular rate for every hour that she worked in excess of forty.
The complaint claims that Defendant also failed to maintain
accurate time records of hours worked by Plaintiff and other
employees and never posted any notice to inform employees of their
federal rights to overtime and minimum wage payments.
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs of suit.
Ocean CC d/b/a Forte Dei Marmi is a restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305)446-1500
Fax: (305)446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
OSL RETAIL: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Sawyer Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK LAMONT SAWYER, individually and on behalf of all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSL RETAIL SERVICES
CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02442 (N.D. Ill., April 21,
2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a salesperson for the past
three years and was stationed in a Walmart store in Illinois to
assist in the Defendant's marking of cellular-related products.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
current and former employees regularly worked over 40 hours per
week, but Defendant did not fully paid their overtime hours at one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay.
Plaintiff claims that for the pay periods of 9/26/19 to 10/12/19
and 11/24/19 to 12/7/19, Defendant did not pay him one and one-half
times of his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
forty in an individual work week.
OSL Retail Services Corp. sells cellular telephone-related products
throughout the U.S. and Canada and operates on behalf of Walmart,
Lowes, Huawei, Mastercard, DirectTV, and other well-known
companies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Fish, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Tel: (630)355-7590
Fax: (630)778-0400
Email: docketing@fishlawfirm.com
PARKING REIT: Bid to Dismiss SIPDA Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The Parking REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the Company and its Board of Directors are
seeking dismissal of an Amended Complaint in the class action suit
initiated by SIPDA Revocable Trust ("SIPDA").
On March 12, 2019, stockholder SIPDA Revocable Trust ("SIPDA")
filed a purported class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.
SIPDA filed an Amended Complaint on October 11, 2019. The Amended
Complaint purports to assert class action claims on behalf of all
public shareholders of the Company and MVP I between August 11,
2017 and April 1, 2019 in connection with the (i) August 2017 proxy
statements filed with the SEC to obtain shareholder approval for
the merger of the Company and MVP I (the "proxy statements"), and
(ii) August 2018 proxy statement filed with the SEC to solicit
proxies for the election of certain directors (the "2018 proxy
statement").
The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the 2017
proxy statements failed to disclose that two major reasons for the
merger and certain charter amendments implemented in connection
therewith were (i) to facilitate the execution of an amended
advisory agreement that allegedly was designed to benefit Mr.
Shustek financially in the event of an internalization and (ii) to
give Mr. Shustek the ability to cause the Company to internalize
based on terms set forth in the amended advisory agreement.
The Amended Complaint further alleges, among other things, that the
2018 proxy statement failed to disclose the Company's purported
plan to internalize its management function.
The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that all
defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by disseminating proxy statements
that allegedly contain false and misleading statements or omit to
state material facts; (ii) that the director defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; and (iii) that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the members of the
class and to the Company.
The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
damages; declaratory relief; and the payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs and
expenses.
On June 13, 2019, the court granted SIPDA's motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff. The litigation is still at a preliminary stage.
On January 9, 2020, the Company and the Board of Directors moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The Parking REIT said, "The Company and the Board of Directors have
reviewed the allegations in the Amended Complaint and believe the
claims asserted against them in the Amended Complaint are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend this action."
The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal
income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December
31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
REALNETWORKS INC: Expects Valid Claims to Paid During Q2
--------------------------------------------------------
RealNetworks, 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 company expects that
valid claims related to Napster Settlement to be paid in the second
quarter of 2020.
The company acquired an additional 42% stake in Napster music
business on January 18, 2019 (the "Napster Acquisition"), which
offers a comprehensive set of digital music products and services
designed to provide consumers with broad access to digital music.
In March 2016, Napster was notified of a putative consumer class
action lawsuit relating to an alleged failure to pay so-called
"mechanical royalties" on behalf of the plaintiffs and "other
similarly-situated holders of mechanical rights in copyrighted
musical works."
On April 7, 2017, the plaintiffs and Napster agreed to settlement
terms during a mediation session. The long form Settlement
Agreement was executed effective on January 16, 2019.
The damages payable under the Settlement Agreement will be
calculated on a claims-made basis.
In May 2019, public notice was posted about the settlement
informing purported class members that they could make claims or
object to the settlement, and the claims period ended on December
31, 2019.
The preliminary results show that the claimed damages are not
significant, and valid claims are expected to be paid by Napster in
the second quarter of 2020.
RealNetworks, Inc. provides network-delivered digital media
applications and services to manage, play, and share digital media.
RealNetworks, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in
Seattle, Washington.
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Appeals Ruling in Wilson TCPA Suit to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, filed an appeal from the
District Court's decision in the lawsuit entitled Crystal Wilson v.
Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01993, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks legal and equitable remedies resulting from illegal actions
of Redbox Automated Retail, LLC in transmitting unsolicited,
autodialed SMS text message advertisements to her cellular
telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other consumers
across the country, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Crystal Wilson v. Redbox
Automated Retail, LLC, Case No. 20-1678, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee CRYSTAL WILSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com
Defendant-Appellant REDBOX AUTOMATED RETAIL, LLC is represented
by:
Martin W. Jaszczuk, Esq.
JASZCZUK P.C.
311 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 442-0509
Email: mjaszczuk@jaszczuk.com
REDSTONE FEDERAL CREDIT: Leslie Files Suit in Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Redstone Federal
Credit Union. The case is styled as Heather Leslie, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Redstone
Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00629-HNJ (N.D.
Ala., May 5, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Banks and
Banking filed pursuant to a Federal Question.
Redstone Federal Credit Union (or RFCU) is a federally chartered
credit union based in Huntsville, Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank Jerome Tapley, Esq.
CORY WATSON, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
Birmingham, AL 35205
Tel: (205) 328-2200
Fax: (205) 324-7896
Email: jtapley@corywatson.com
- and -
Hirlye Ray Lutz , III, Esq.
CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS
2131 Magnolia Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35205
Tel: (205) 328-2200
Fax: (205) 324-7896
Email: rlutz@corywatson.com
- and -
Leila H Watson, Esq.
CORY WATSON, PC
2131 Magnolia Avenue South, Suite 200
Birmingham, AL 35205
Tel: (205) 328-2200
Fax: (250) 324-7896
Email: lwatson@corywatson.com
RELIANCE WORLDWIDE: Montag Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN MONTAG and WARREN
KUIPER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
RELIANCE WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation and HOME
DEPOT USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation (Filed Jan. 23, 2020), was
removed from the Florida Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
April 29, 2020.
The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-80714-XXXX to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and disgorgement of the
Defendants' profits, alleging that RWC's website states it has sold
"more than 550 million [SharkBite] connections" and that "more than
1.5 million [SharkBite] connections are made every week." SharkBite
water heater connectors currently sold at Home Depot range in price
from approximately $11.00 to $30.00. According to Plaintiffs'
allegations, RWC's 2018 sales revenue in the Americas was $559.7
million and 2018 worldwide sales revenue was $769.4 million.
RWC is a global provider of water control systems and plumbing
solutions for domestic, commercial and industrial
applications.[BN]
Defendant RWC is represented by:
David A. Coulson, Esq.
Eva M. Spahn, Esq.
Robert S. Galbo, Esq.
elisa H. Baca, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 579-0500
Facsimile: (305) 579-0717
E-mail: coulsond@gtlaw.com
cruzm@gtlaw.com
spahne@gtlaw.com
galbor@gtlaw.com
bacae@gtlaw.com
orizondol@gtlaw.com
FLService@gtlaw.com
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Gomez Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Fernando Gomez.
In December 2018, a class action lawsuit was brought against the
Company in the Superior Court of the State of California by
Fernando Gomez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
persons, alleging violation of California labor laws.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against such claims;
however, there can be no assurance that it will be able to prevail.
Roadrunner said, "In light of the relatively early stage of the
proceedings, the Company is unable to predict the potential costs
or range of costs at this time."
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics services. The company
operates through three segments: Truckload & Express Services
(TES), Less-than-Truckload (LTL), and Ascent Global Logistics.
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is headquartered in Downers
Grove, Illinois.
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Settlements in Kent Class Suit All Paid Up
------------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that all settlements have
been paid in the class action suit entitled, Kent v. Stoelting et
al.
On June 28, 2017, Jesse Kent filed a complaint alleging derivative
claims on the company's behalf and class action claims in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
On December 22, 2017, Chester County Employees Retirement Fund
filed a complaint alleging derivative claims on the company's
behalf in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin.
On March 21, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Kent and Chester County actions under the caption Kent v. Stoelting
et al (Case No. 17-cv-00893) (the "Federal Derivative Action").
On March 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed their Verified Consolidated
Shareholder Derivative Complaint alleging claims on behalf of us
against Peter Armbruster, Mark DiBlasi, Scott Dobak, Christopher
Doerr, Ivor Evans, Brian van Helden, John Kennedy III, Ralph
Kittle, Brian Murray, Scott Rued, James Staley, Curtis Stoelting,
William Urkiel, Chad Utrup, Judith Vijums, and Michael Ward.
The Complaint asserted claims arising out of the company's January
2017 announcement that it would be restating its prior period
financial statements. The Complaint sought monetary damages,
improvements to our corporate governance and internal procedures,
an accounting from defendants of the damages allegedly caused by
them and the improper amounts the defendants allegedly obtained,
and punitive damages.
On March 28, 2019, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement, which provides for certain corporate governance changes
and a $6.9 million payment, $4.8 million of which will be paid by
our D&O carriers into an escrow account to be used by the company
to settle the class action described above and $2.1 million of
which will be paid by the company's D&O carriers to cover
plaintiffs attorney's fees and expenses.
On September 26, 2019, the Court entered an Order finally approving
the settlement and a final judgment. All settlements have been
paid.
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics services. The company
operates through three segments: Truckload & Express Services
(TES), Less-than-Truckload (LTL), and Ascent Global Logistics.
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is headquartered in Downers
Grove, Illinois.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Fails to Shield Crew From COVID-19, Molchun Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mykola Molchun, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated crew members working aboard ROYAL CARIBBEAN
CRUISES vessels v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., Case No.
1:20-cv-21792-UU (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2020), is brought to deal
with the Defendant's careless and continuous failure to protect its
crew members assigned to work aboard the vessels from COVID-19.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to protect its crew
despite RCCL having prior notice pertaining to the dangerous
conditions and/or explosive contagiousness associated with COVID-19
aboard its vessels from previous passengers, crew members and/or
other invitees (e.g., independent contractors) RCCL allowed aboard
the vessels and/or actively granted access to same.
Despite having notice that COVID-19 was and/or likely was present
aboard the vessels, RCCL glaringly failed to follow even the most
basic safety precautions after acquiring such notice, such as
timely quarantining crew members stationed aboard the vessels,
timely providing crew members stationed aboard the vessels masks
and/or timely requiring them to observe social distancing measures
aboard the vessels, according to the complaint. Instead, in an
alarming lack of caution, RCCL threw St. Patrick's Day (March 17,
2020) parties for its crew members aboard the vessels--with over
1,000 crew members in attendance--even when RCCL suspended future
cruise operations for passengers on March 13, 2020. Thereafter,
RCCL continued to allow its crew members to eat in buffet settings
aboard the vessels, and mandated their participation in shipboard
drills. RCCL's egregious failure to protect its employees has
already resulted in hundreds of positive COVID-19 cases and what is
more likely thousands given that there is limited testing being
done on its ships.
As a result of its careless conduct, RCCL negligently exposed
and/or is currently exposing thousands of its crew members to
COVID-19, the Plaintiff contends. Such harm includes these crew
members suffering from lung injuries caused by COVID-19 and/or
permanently reduced lung capacity, complications and/or further
injury/ies caused by contracting COVID-19 in conjunction with
pre-existing illness and/or medical conditions and/or death, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of Ukraine.
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. is a foreign entity which conducts its
business from its principal place of business in Miami,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Margulies, Esq.
Michael A. Winkleman, Esq.
Jacqueline Garcell, Esq.
L. Alex Perez, Esq.
LIPCON, MARGULIES, ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776
2 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 373-3016
Facsimile: (305) 373-6204
Email: jmargulies@lipcon.com
mwinkleman@lipcon.com
jgarcell@lipcon.com
aperez@lipcon.com
RUTGERS: Rocchio Sues Over Failure to Refund Tuition and Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Rocchio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, Case No.
12:20-cv-05390 (D.N.J., April 30, 2020), is brought on behalf of
all people, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic
semester at the Rutgers, and who, because of the Defendant's
response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 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, via letter from University President Robert
Barchi, announced that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic,
beginning Thursday, March 12, through the end of spring break on
March 22, 2020, all classes are cancelled. When classes resume on
March 23, they would be held remotely. Thus, Rutgers has not held
any in-person classes since March 11, 2020. Classes that have
continued have only been offered in an online format, with no
in-person instruction.
As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that Ms. Cheung and the putative class
contracted and paid for, according to the complaint. The online
learning options being offered to Rutgers students are subpar in
practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials,
and access to faculty. Students have been deprived of the
opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person dialogue,
feedback, and critique. The remote learning options are in no way
the equivalent of the in-person education that the Plaintiff and
the putative class members contracted and paid for. Nonetheless,
Rutgers has not refunded any tuition or fees for the Spring 2020
semester.
The Plaintiff contends that she is, therefore, 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 the Defendant did not have a choice in cancelling in-person
classes, it nevertheless has improperly retained funds for services
it is not providing, says the complaint.
Ms. Rocchio is the parent of an undergraduate student at Rutgers.
Ms. Rocchio's son is pursuing a degree in Supply Chain Management.
Rutgers is New Jersey's largest university, with an enrollment of
over 68,000 students. Rutgers operates three New Jersey campuses in
New Brunwick, Newark, and Camden.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
- and -
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
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: scott@bursor.com
sweetcot@bursor.com
SCWORX CORP: Yannes Sues Over Drop in Market Value of Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Yannes, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SCWORX CORP., and MARC S. SCHESSEL, Case No.
1:20-cv-03349 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2020), is brought to pursue
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 arising from the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's securities.
On April 13, 2020, before the market opened, SCWorx announced that
it had received a committed purchase order of two million COVID-19
rapid testing kits, "with provision for additional weekly orders of
2 million units for 23 weeks, valued at $35M per week." On this
news, the Company's share price increased by $9.77, to close at
$12.02 per share on April 13, 2020.
On April 17, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report doubting the
validity of the deal, calling it "completely bogus." According to
Hindenburg Research, the Covid-19 test supplier that SCWorx is
buying from, Promedical, has a Chief Executive Officer "who
formerly ran another business accused of defrauding its investors
and customers" and "was also alleged to have falsified his medical
credentials," Promedical claimed to the FDA and regulators in
Australia to be offering COVID-19 test kits manufactured by Wondfo,
but "Wondfo put out a press release days ago stating that
Promedical 'fraudulently mispresented themselves' as sellers of its
Covid-19 tests and disavowed any relationship," and the buyer that
SCWorx claimed to have lined up does not appear to be "capable of
handling hundreds of millions of dollars in orders."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.19, or more than
17%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $5.76 per
share on April 21, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. On
April 22, 2020, the SEC halted trading of the Company's stock. As
of the filing of this complaint, trading remains halted.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that SCWorx's supplier for COVID-19 tests had
previously misrepresented its operations; (2) that SCWorx's buyer
was a small company that was unlikely to adequately support the
purported volume of orders for COVID-19 tests; (3) that, as a
result, the Company's purchase order for COVID-19 tests had been
overstated or entirely fabricated; and (4) that, as a result, the
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased SCWorx securities during the Class Period.
SCWorx provides data content and services related to the repair,
normalization and interoperability of information for healthcare
providers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and –
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: info@glancylaw.com
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 914-5007
SECOND ROUND: Bolden Calls Debt Collection Letter "Deceptive"
-------------------------------------------------------------
TWANNA BOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SECOND ROUND, L.P., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00431-LY (W.D. Tex., April 22, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Plaintiff is allegedly obligated to pay a debt.
According to the complaint, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by letter
dated December 5, 2019 in an effort to collect an alleged debt.
However, the letter contained no statement pertaining to
Plaintiff's rights following the credit reporting statement; and
failed to advise that the credit reporting statement does not
override the Plaintiff's right to dispute the alleged debt and to
request the name and address of the original creditor.
The complaint asserts that because the letter is open to more than
one reasonable interpretation and is reasonably susceptible to an
inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated consumer, the letter
violates 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e.
Second Round, L.P. regularly collects or attempts to collect debts
asserted to be owed to others. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516)203-7600
Fax: (516)706-5055
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
SENTINEL INSURANCE: Kim Sues to Ensure Benefits for Policyholders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lina Kim, DDS, P.S., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, Case No.
2:20-cv-00657 (W.D. Wash., April 30, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant to ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid.
Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff
cannot provide dental services, according to the complaint. The
Plaintiff intended to rely on its business insurance to keep its
business as a going concern. The Defendant issued one or more
insurance policies to the Plaintiff, including Spectrum Business
Owners Policy and related endorsements, insuring the Plaintiff's
property and business practice and other coverages, with effective
dates of November 18, 2019, to November 18, 2020.
The Defendant's insurance policy issued to the Plaintiff promises
to pay the Plaintiff for "direct physical loss of or physical
damage to" covered property. The Defendant's insurance policy
issued to the Plaintiff includes Business Income Coverage, Extra
Expense Coverage, Extended Business Income Coverage and Civil
Authority Coverage. The Plaintiff paid all premiums for the
coverage when due.
The Plaintiff alleges that its property sustained direct physical
loss and/or damages related to COVID-19 and/or the proclamations
and orders. The Plaintiff's property will continue to sustain
direct physical loss or damage covered by the Sentinel policy or
policies, including but not limited to business interruption, extra
expense, interruption by civil authority, and other expenses. The
Plaintiff's property cannot be used for its intended purposes. As a
result, the Plaintiff has experienced and will experience loss
covered by the Sentinel policy or policies. The Defendant has
denied or will deny all similar claims for coverage, says the
complaint.
Lina Kim, DDS, P.S., is a dental business with locations at
Seattle, Washington.
Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited, is an insurance carrier
incorporated and domiciled in Connecticut, with its principal place
of business in Hartford Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy Williams Derry, Esq.
Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
Ian S. Birk, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
Maureen Falecki, Esq.
Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Fax: (206) 623-3384
Email: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com
nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Alison Chase, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 456-1496
Fax: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com
SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Mediation Ongoing in Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sequans Communications S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019, that mediation is ongoing in the
consolidated securities class action suit.
In August 2017, two securities class action lawsuits were filed,
which were consolidated into a single lawsuit in September 2017,
alleging violations of the U.S. federal securities laws by the
Company, the Company's President and CEO, and the Company's Chief
Financial Officer.
The plaintiffs asserted claims primarily based on purported
misrepresentations regarding Sequans' revenue recognition policy in
its Annual Reports on Form 20-F for the fiscal years ended 2015 and
2016. In particular, plaintiffs claim that an August 1, 2017 press
release, in which the Company disclosed a $740,000 reduction in
previously-recognized revenue, indicated that representations in
earlier public disclosures regarding revenue were false or
misleading.
An amended complaint was filed in April 2018, and the Company and
the individual defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss.
On September 30, 2019, the Court issued a decision dismissing the
claims against the Company's CFO, but permitting the claims against
the Company and the Company's CEO to proceed. The action is
presently in the initial stages of fact discovery, and the parties
have agreed to a second mediation session in the latter half of
March 2020.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
Sequans said, "At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the
ultimate outcome of this legal matter and its impact on us."
Sequans Communications S.A., together with its subsidiaries,
engages in fabless designing, developing, and supplying 4G LTE
semiconductor solutions for wireless broadband and Internet of
Things applications. Sequans Communications S.A. was founded in
2003 and is headquartered in Paris, France.
SHOWNTAIL THE LEGEND: Entertainers Hit Unpaid Overtime, Tip Credit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenyatta Clay, Shenique Ray and Sarah X, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Showntail The
Legend LLC and Cedric Jones, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00124, (N.D.
Fla., April 22, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime wages, house fees, and for remedies for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, including liquidated damages, attorney's
fees, interest and court costs.
Showntail The Legend operates an adult-themed nightclub and lounge
located in Panama City Beach where Plaintiffs worked as adult
entertainers. They claim to be misclassified as independent
contractors, denied overtime pay and had their tips illegally
deducted. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Charles Davis, Jr., Esq.
THE GILBERT FIRM PA - MARIANNA FL
3026 Auction Drive
Marianna, FL, 32448-7714
Tel: (850) 482-2223
Email: jamescdavisjr01@gmail.com
SOCIETY INSURANCE: JDS 1455 Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JDS 1455, INC. d/b/a WEST ON NORTH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. SOCIETY INSURANCE,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02546 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2020),
alleges that the Defendant refused to pay for direct physical loss
of or damage incurred by the Plaintiff following the interruption
of its business operations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On or about March 23, 2020, the Plaintiff made a claim for coverage
pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Business Owners Policy
but the Defendant denied Plaintiff's and Class members' claim for
coverage for all COVID-19 related losses. The Plaintiff claims that
the policy's Civil Authority coverage included coverage for loss of
business income and extra expense. The policy does not exclude
viruses and therefore, the Defendant should cover losses caused by
viruses, such as COVID-19.
JDS 1455, Inc. is a restaurant and bar operator under the name West
on North, with principal place of business located at 2509 W. North
Ave., Chicago, Illinois.
Society Insurance is a mutual insurance company organized under the
laws of the State of Wisconsin, with its principal place of
business in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
John P. Bjork, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER PC
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
ekelly@sperling-law.com
jbjork@sperling-law.com
- and -
David S. Klevatt, Esq.
Timothy M. Howe, Esq.
KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES LLC
33 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60602-2615
Telephone: (312) 782-9090
E-mail: dklevatt@InsuranceLawyer.com
tim@chicagolaw.biz
- and -
James D. Reinfranck, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARCY W. REINFRANCK
2316 Dehne Rd.
Northbrook, IL 60062
E-mail: James.reinfranck@gmail.com
SONTAG & HYMAN: Ofori et al Sue over Confusing Collection Letters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NIESHA S. OFORI and DZIDEDI OFORI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SONTAG & HYMAN, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01882 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Plaintiffs are allegedly obligated to pay a debt in default that
was assigned or otherwise transferred to Defendant for collection.
According to the complaint, Defendant contacted Plaintiffs by
letters, the 30-Day Letter and the 14-Day Letter which are both
dated December 10, 2019, in an attempt to collect the alleged debt
in default. The 30-Day Letter provides Plaintiffs 30-days to
dispute the alleged Debt. However, the 14-Day Letter gave
Plaintiffs only 14-days to pay the alleged debt under the threat of
eviction.
The complaint asserts that both letters failed to explain that the
demand for payment within 14 days does not override Plaintiffs'
rights to dispute the alleged debt and to seek validation of the
alleged debt. Also, the 30-Day Letter makes no mention of the
14-Day Letter and likewise with the 14-Day Letter.
Sontag & Hyman, P.C. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516)203-7600
Fax: (516)706-5055
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Boucher Sues Over Shelved Flight, Seeks Refund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Boucher, an individual person on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-60829, (S.D. Fla., April 22, 2020), seeks
a full cash refund, an award of reasonable attorney's fees and
costs and such other and further relief resulting from unjust
enrichment, fraud and breach of contract.
Spirit is a low-cost airline among the largest airlines in the
United States. Its business was disrupted as a result of
government-mandated restrictions on travel in response to the
COVID19 pandemic.
Boucher was scheduled to fly with Spirit on a round trip from
Hartford, Connecticut to Fort Lauderdale, Florida on March 19,
2020, and a return flight on March 23, 2020. However, the flight
was cancelled by Spirit due to the coronavirus so she requested a
refund. She alleged that Spirit was only issuing credits for the
flight cancellations, not cash refunds. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
- and -
Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
- and -
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-Mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
SPRINGVILLE PARTNERS: Benitez Slams Autodialed Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mariano Benitez and Keith Hobbs, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Springville Partners LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01870 (E.D. N.Y., April 21, 2020), seeks
statutory and treble damages, injunctive relief, compensation and
attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991.
Springville is a financial services company. In an effort to
effectuate their business, they aggressively promote its business.
To generate leads for its financial products, it conducted a
wide-scale telemarketing campaign. Plaintiffs claim that they
received autodialed calls that initially put them on hold then
transferred the call to a telemarketer offering loans. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
Stephen A. Klein, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
sklein@woodrowpeluso.com
- and -
Shawn Kassman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN KASSMAN, ESQ. PC
110 Carleton Avenue
Central Islip, NY 11722
Tel: (631) 232-9479
Fax: (631) 232-9489
Email: shawnkassman@centralisliplawyer.com
SQE DELIVERY: Hasrouni Seeks OT Pay for Delivery Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------
NAIM HASROUNI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. SQE DELIVERY LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00897 (N.D. Ohio, April 24, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio overtime compensation statute,
and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated individuals who worked for the Defendant as
hourly, non-exempt transportation drivers, alleges that the
Defendant failed to compensate them for all hours worked in excess
of 40 in a workweek and engaged in a practice of automatically
deducting a lunch break on days were such a break was not taken.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant since February 2020 as
a delivery driver.
SQE Delivery, Inc. is a transportation business that provides
delivery services throughout Ohio, including in Cuyahoga County.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
TITTLE & PERLMUTER
2012 West 25th Street, Suite 716
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 308-1522
Facsimile: (888) 604-9299
E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
- and -
Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
THE FUCHS FIRM LLC
3961 Silsby Road
University Heights, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 505-7500
Facsimile: (216) 505-7500
E-mail: josh@fuchsfirm.com
SYNERGY INSPECTIONS: Bengtson Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Bengtson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Synergy Inspections LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00575 (W.D. Pa., April 21, 2020), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Synergy provides natural gas pipeline inspection services for
gathering, transmission and distribution project in the Appalachian
Basin. Bengtson worked for Synergy as an inspector from April 2018
to November 2018. He claims to be paid a day-rate basis without
paid overtime for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours each
week. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Tel: (412) 766-1455
Fax: (412) 766-0300
Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
SYNERGY INSPECTIONS: Bengtson Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Bengtson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Synergy Inspections LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00575 (W.D. Pa., April 21, 2020), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Synergy provides natural gas pipeline inspection services for
gathering, transmission and distribution project in the Appalachian
Basin. Bengtson worked for Synergy as an inspector from April 2018
to November 2018. He claims to be paid a day-rate basis without
paid overtime for the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours each
week. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Tel: (412) 766-1455
Fax: (412) 766-0300
Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
TEXAS: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Valentine Civil Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Bryan Collier, the executive director of Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, et al., filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit titled LADDY CURTIS VALENTINE and
RICHARD ELVIN KING, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. BRYAN COLLIER, in his official capacity, ROBERT
HERRERA, in his official capacity, and TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, Case No. 4:20-CV-1115, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' willful and/or deliberately indifferent
and discriminatory conduct in failing to protect inmates housed in
the Wallace Pack Unit, who face a high risk of severe illness from
exposure to Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19.
This case is about the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's
("TDCJ") failure to take proper measures to prevent transmission of
COVID-19 to some of its most vulnerable inmates. The named
Plaintiffs and the classes they seek to represent are currently
incarcerated at TDCJ's Pack Unit in unincorporated Grimes County,
Texas. Prisons are an ideal breeding ground for COVID-19. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that prisons are
particularly susceptible to the spread of COVID-19 due to the high
population density of inmates, and the tight, confined
environment.
The Plaintiffs contend that despite the ticking time bomb that
COVID-19 represents, TDCJ has failed to implement necessary or even
adequate policies and practices at the Pack Unit. The Plaintiffs
say they have been denied proper and equal access to vital
preventative measures to avoid the transmission of COVID-19, in
violation of federal law and the United States Constitution.
The appellate case is captioned as Laddy Valentine, et al. v. Bryan
Collier, et al., Case No. 20-20207, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees LADDY CURTIS VALENTINE and RICHARD ELVIN KING
are represented by:
Brandon W. Duke, Esq.
John R. Keville, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN, L.L.P.
800 Capitol Street
Houston, TX 77002-2925
Telephone: (713) 651-2600
Email: bduke@winston.com
jkeville@winston.com
- and -
Jeff S. Edwards, Esq.
THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM
1101 E. 11th Street, Haehnel Building
Austin, TX 78702
Telephone: (512) 623-7727
Defendants-Appellants BRYAN COLLIER, ROBERT HERRERA and TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, are represented by:
Kyle Douglas Hawkins, Esq.
Jason R. LaFond, Esq.
Christin Cobe Vasquez, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)
Austin, TX 78711-2548
Telephone: (512) 936-1700
TIKTOK INC: P.S. Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Biometric Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
P.S., a minor, by and through her Guardian, Cherise Slate, and
M.T.W., a minor, by and through her Guardian, Brenda Washington,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TIKTOK, INC., a corporation, and BYTEDANCE, INC., a corporation,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02992 (N.D. Cal., April 30, 2020), is brought to
enjoin Defendants' continued violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act and to recover statutory damages for the
Defendants' unauthorized collection, capture, receipt, storage,
and/or use of biometric information belonging to TikTok App users
in Illinois.
The App's playful features belie the Defendants' reliance on users'
private, biometric information, according to the complaint. The App
scans a user's facial geometry before running an algorithm to
determine the user's age. The App also uses facial scans to allow
users to superimpose animated facial filters onto the moving faces
of video subjects.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants do not inform the App's
users that their biometric data is being collected, captured,
received, obtained, stored, and/or used by the App. Nor do the
Defendants disclose what they do with that data, who has access to
that data, and whether, where, and for how long that data is
stored. By collecting, capturing, receiving, obtaining, storing
and/or using facial scans without obtaining informed consent and by
failing to make public their data use and retention policy, the
Defendants violated the BIPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are minors, who began using TikTok in 2018 and
2019.
TikTok, Inc., has created one of the most popular social media
networking apps in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Megan E. Jones, Esq.
Seth R. Gassman, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 633-1908
Email: mjones@hausfeld.com
Email: sgassman@hausfeld.com
- and -
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
1700 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Will Thompson, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (469) 904-4550
Email: wthompson@burnscharest.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Daniel Charest, Esq.
Russell Herman, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (469) 904-4550
Email: wburns@burnscharest.com
dcharest@burnscharest.com
rherman@burnscharest.com
- and -
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq.
Patrick Murphree, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70115
Phone: (504) 779-2845
Email: knelson@burnscharest.com
aklevorn@burnscharest.com
pmurphree@burnscharest.com
- and -
Jason M. Baer, Esq.
Casey C. Dereus, Esq.
Joshua A. Stein, Esq.
BAER LAW, LLC
3000 Kingman Street, Suite 200
Metairie, LA 70006
Phone: (504) 372-0111
Email: jbaer@baerlawllc.com
cdereus@baerlawllc.com
jstein@baerlawllc.com
TOWER 157: Underpays Janitors & Superintendents, Peral Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL PERAL, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
Plaintiff v. TOWER 157, LLC, BROADWAY 152 LLC, MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS
REALTY, LLC, 201 WEST 84TH STREET, LLC, GILI HABERBERG, and ROBERT
SEIDEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03197 (S.D.N.Y., April 22,
2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants
for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a janitor and superintendent
for buildings owned by Defendants beginning in or around April 2019
and was terminated in or around January 2020.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff managed well over one hundred
units and similarly worked over 40 hours per week and over 10 hours
per day. But, despite frequently working more than forty hours a
week from April 2019 until January 2020, Defendant never gave
Plaintiff overtime pay.
The complaint claims that Defendants unlawfully failed to pay
Plaintiff the proper spread of hours premium and to provide with
proper wage notices or wage statements.
Gili Haberberg and Robert Seiden are owners and/or managers of the
Corporate Defendants, exercise operational control to all employees
including Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, exercise the
power to fire and hire employees, supervise and control employee
work schedules and conditions of employment, and determine the rate
and method of compensation of employees.
Tower 157, LLC, Broadway 152 LLC, Morningside Heights Realty, LLC,
and 201 West 84th Street, LLC operate a series of buildings as a
single integrated enterprise. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Tel: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
Email: cklee@leelitigation.com
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Fox Suit Over Coverage Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN M. FOX, DDS, Plaintiff, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00598-MLP (W.D.
Wash., April 21, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
to ensure that Plaintiff and other similarly-situated policyholders
receive the insurance benefits from the Defendant to which they are
entitled and for which they paid.
The Defendant Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America
issued one or more insurance policies to Plaintiff, including
Businessowners Property Coverage and related endorsements, insuring
Plaintiff's property and business practice and other coverages,
with effective dates of February 7, 2020 to February 7, 2021.
The Defendant provides Plaintiff with Business Income Coverage,
Extra Expense Coverage, Extended Business Income Coverage and Civil
Authority Coverage.
On or about January 2020, the United States of America saw its
first cases of persons infected by COVID-19, which has been
designated a worldwide pandemic. In light of this pandemic,
Washington Governor Jay Inslee issued certain proclamations and
orders affecting many persons and businesses in Washington, whether
infected with COVID-19 or not, requiring certain public health
precautions. Plaintiff's property sustained direct physical loss or
damage as a result of the proclamations and orders.
The Plaintiff will soon file a written claim for her loss covered
by the Policy. Upon information and belief, Travelers has denied
coverage for other similarly situated policyholders and will again
deny Plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff is harmed by the breach of the
insurance contract by the Defendant.
Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, is an insurance
carrier incorporated and domiciled in the State of
Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian S. Birk, Esq.
Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
Maureen Falecki, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com
– and –
Alison Chase, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com
UNDER ARMOUR: Dahlin Alleges Phony Discounts
--------------------------------------------
MATILDA DAHLIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., a Maryland
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03706 (C.D. Cal., April 22, 2020) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
consumers who have purchased one or more Under Armour-branded
outlet merchandise products from the Outlets that was deceptively
represented as discounted from a false advertised reference price.
The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of this false,
misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the false and
misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and
to obtain redress for those who have purchased merchandise tainted
by this deceptive pricing scheme. Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin
Defendant from using false and misleading misrepresentations
regarding former price comparisons in its labeling and advertising
permanently.
Through its false and misleading marketing, advertising, and
pricing scheme alleged herein, the Defendant violated, and
continues to violate, California and federal law which prohibits
the advertisement of goods for sale as discounted from former
prices that are false and which prohibits the dissemination of
misleading statements about the existence and amount of price
reductions. Specifically, Defendant violated and continues to
violate: California's Unfair Competition Law; California's False
Advertising Law; the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and
the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits "unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" and false
advertisements.
Under Armour, Inc. is an American company that manufactures
footwear, sports, and casual apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
sbraden@carlsonlynch.com
UNITED OF OMAHA: Bentley Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jennifer Bentley filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Jennifer Bentley v. United of Omaha Life
Insurance, Case No. 2:15-cv-07870-DMG-AJW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
focuses on the improper termination of life insurance policies.
The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Bentley v. United of
Omaha Life Insurance, Case No. 20-55466, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The cross-appeal briefing schedule is set as follows:
-- First cross appeal brief is due on August 3, 2020, for
United of Omaha Life Insurance Company;
-- Second brief on cross appeal is due on September 2, 2020,
for Jennifer Bentley;
-- Third brief on cross appeal is due on October 2, 2020, for
United of Omaha Life Insurance Company;
-- Optional cross appeal reply brief is due within 21 days of
service of third brief on cross appeal.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant, JENNIFER BENTLEY, as trustee of the 2001
Bentley Family Trust, and others similarly situated, is represented
by:
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Paul E. Slater, Esq.
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com
jvanek@speling-law.com
- and -
Jason Zweig, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN
555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 752-5455
E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com
Defendant-Appellee UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:
Larry M. Golub, Esq.
Vivian Orlando, Esq.
Martin Rosen, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
633 West 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-2800
Email: lgolub@hinshawlaw.com
vorlando@hinshawlaw.com
mrosen@hinshawlaw.com
- and -
Kimberly A. Jansen, Esq.
Joshua Vincent, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 704-3821
Email: kjansen@hinshawlaw.com
jvincent@hinshawlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Wolf Appeals Ruling in Roman Habeas Corpus Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants-Respondents Chad F. Wolf, et al., filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et al.
v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00768-TJH-PVC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.
Chad F. Wolf is the acting Secretary of Homeland Security and Under
Secretary of Homeland Security for Strategy, Policy, and Plans.
The nature of suit is stated as "Habeas Corpus--Alien Detainee for
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus."
The appellate case is captioned as Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et al.
v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 20-55436, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case shall proceed as
follows:
-- The opening brief and excerpts of record are due not later
than May 22, 2020;
-- The answering brief is due June 19, 2020, or 28 days after
service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and
-- The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners-Appellees KELVIN HERNANDEZ ROMAN, BEATRIZ
ANDREA FORERO CHAVEZ, and MIGUEL AGUILAR ESTRADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Ahilan Thevanesan Arulanantham, Esq.
Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq.
Michael Kaufman, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
1313 West 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 977-9500
Facsimile: (213) 417-2211
Email: aarulanantham@aclusocal.org
jbansal@aclusocal.org
mkaufman@aclusocal.org
- and -
Samir Deger-Sen, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1304
Email: samir.deger-sen@lw.com
- and -
William Friedman, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
500 North Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 756-8268
Email: william.friedman@lw.com
Defendants-Respondents-Appellants CHAD F. WOLF, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, et al., are represented by:
Daniel Beck, Esq.
USLA-OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
300 North Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-2574
Facsimile: (213) 894-7819
Email: daniel.beck@usdoj.gov
- and -
Hillary Burrelle, Esq.
AGCA-OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
300 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 894-2420
- and -
Victor Manuel Mercado-Santana, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Robins, Esq.
DOJ-U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 878, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
VAIL RESORTS: Skiers Seek Refund Amid Closures Over COVID-19
------------------------------------------------------------
JIM FAYDENKO, STEPHEN CONTI, CHAD HIXON, and ENYINNAYA OKWULEHIE
Plaintiffs, v. VAIL RESORTS, INC. and THE VAIL CORPORATION d/b/a
VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01134
(D. Colo., April 22, 2020) is a class action suit brought by the
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated to seek redress for Defendants' refusal to refund fees
after it closed all of its North American ski resorts, well short
of the promised duration of the ski season due to the spread of
COVID-19.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collected fees from
skiers, snowboarders, and others, but then deprived them of the
promised "unlimited skiing and snowboarding" from October 2019 to
June 2020.
The Defendants told its customers that "all season pass and Epic
Day Pass products . . . are non-refundable and non-transferable to
another season."
By closing all of their North American ski resorts effective March
15, 2020, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and Class Members of over
30% of the ski and snowboard season.
Plaintiffs seek relief for themselves and all Class Members for
Defendants' breach of contract, breach of express warranties,
negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, as well as
violations of state consumer protection statutes.
Vail Resorts, Inc. operates 37 destination mountain resorts and
regional ski areas, 34 of which are located in North America.
The Vail Corporation d/b/a Vail Resorts Management Company is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Vail Resorts, Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
Alec C. Sherod , Esq.
Michael R. Cashman, Esq.
Gregory S. Otsuka, Esq.
Daniel K. Asiedu, Esq.
Faline M. Williams, Esq.
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
Email: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com
asherod@hjlawfirm.com
mcashman@hjlawfirm.com
gotsuka@hjlawfirm.com
dasiedu@hjlawfirm.com
fwilliams@hjlawfirm.com
– and -
G. Randall Garrou, Esq.
WESTON, GARROU & MOONEY
12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 525
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 442-0072
Facsimile: (310) 442-0899
Email: randygarrou@wgdlaw.com
– and –
Peter M. Fisher, Esq.
FISHER LAW OFFICE, PLLC
13031 McGregor Blvd., Suite 13
Fort Myers, FL 33919
Telephone: (239) 236-8656
Facsimile: (239) 790-1358
Email: Peter@FisherLawFL.com
VENUS CONCEPT: Class Suit over IPO Underway
-------------------------------------------
Venus Concept Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that a hearing on the company's demurrer is
currently scheduled for May 8, 2020, in the consolidated class
action suit pending before the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo
Between May 23, 2018 and June 11, 2019, four putative shareholder
class actions complaints were filed against the company, certain of
its former officers and directors, certain of its venture capital
investors, and the underwriters of the company's initial public
offering (IPO).
Two of these complaints, Wong v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et
al., No. 18CIV02609, and Li v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al.,
No. 19CIV08173 (together, the "State Actions"), were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, and
assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, or the Securities Act.
The other two complaints, Guerrini v. Restoration Robotics, Inc.,
et al., No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD and Yzeiraj v. Restoration Robotics,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03883-BLF (together, the "Federal
Actions"), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and assert claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
The complaints all allege, among other things, that the company's
Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and
the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection
with the company's IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained
untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to
state material facts required to be stated therein.
The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages, other equitable
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.
In the State Actions, the company, along with the other defendants,
successfully demurred to the initial Wong complaint for failure to
state a claim, and secured a stay of both cases based on the forum
selection clause contained in our Amended and Restated Certificate
of Incorporation, which designates the federal district courts as
the exclusive forums for claims arising under the Securities Act.
However, on December 19, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery in
Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg held that exclusive federal forum
provisions are invalid under Delaware law. Under this ruling, the
San Mateo Superior Court lifted its stay of State Actions on
December 10, 2019.
On January 17, 2020, Plaintiffs in the State Actions filed a
consolidated amended complaint for violations of federal securities
laws, alleging again that, among other things, the company's
Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and
the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection
with the company's IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained
untrue statements of material fact, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to
state material facts required to be stated therein.
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, other equitable
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.
On February 24, 2020, the company demurred to the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim. A hearing on the
company's demurrer was scheduled for May 8, 2020.
On March 18, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Chancery
Court's decision in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg and held that
exclusive federal forum provisions are valid under Delaware law.
The Company intends to seek appropriate relief based on the
Sciabacucchi decision.
In the Federal Actions, which have been consolidated under the
caption In re Restoration Robotics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD, Lead Plaintiff Eduardo Guerrini filed
his consolidated amended complaint for violations of federal
securities laws on November 30, 2018.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges again that, among other
things, the company's Registration Statement filed with the SEC on
September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October
13, 2017 in connection with the company's IPO were inaccurate and
misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be
stated therein.
On January 29, 2019, the company, along with certain of its former
officers and directors, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
On October 18, 2019, the District Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss as to all but two allegedly false or misleading
statements contained in our Prospectus. On December 9, 2019, the
company filed its answer to the consolidated amended complaint
denying the falsity of these statements, and discovery is
underway.
Venus Concept Inc., a medical technology company previously known
as Restoration Robotics, Inc., develops and commercializes
image-guided robotic systems in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Toronto, Ontario.
VENUS CONCEPT: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff & Counsel in Pak Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Venus Concept Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the court in Pak v. Restoration Robotics,
Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-02237, has appointed Joon Pak as Lead
Plaintiff and approved his selection of Lead Counsel.
A putative shareholder class action complaint captioned Pak v.
Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-02237, was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on
December 6, 2019.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9.
The complaint alleges that the proxy statement filed with the SEC
by Restoration Robotics on September 10, 2019 in connection with
the Merger contained false or misleading information.
The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or
rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On February 26, 2020, the District Court appointed Joon Pak as Lead
Plaintiff in the Pak action, and approved his selection of Lead
Counsel.
Venus siad, "We believe that these lawsuits are without merit and
we intend to vigorously defend against these claims."
Venus Concept Inc., a medical technology company previously known
as Restoration Robotics, Inc., develops and commercializes
image-guided robotic systems in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Toronto, Ontario.
VMSB LLC: Pichs Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mikel Pichs, and other similarly situated individuals v. VMSB, LLC
d/b/a CASA CASUARINA d/b/a GIANNI'S, Case No. 1:20-cv-21800-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., April 30, 2020), is brought to recover money damages
for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks
on or after April 2017 (the "material time") without being
compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA, according to the
complaint. Therefore, the Defendant willfully failed to pay the
Plaintiff for all his overtime hours at the rate of time and
one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess
of 40.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time, restaurant employee.
Casa Casuarina is an Italian/Mediterranean restaurant located in
Miami Beach, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
WATERMARK RETIREMENT: Fails to Provide Meal Periods, Alaniz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EVANINA ALANIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WATERMARK RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, LLC; WATERMARK
RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; WATERMARK SERVICES, IV, LLC and DOES
1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV16386 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 29, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure
to provide meal periods, to permit rest breaks, to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and to pay all wages due upon separation
of employment as required by the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of California and was employed by the
Defendants in California.
The Defendants are in the business of providing senior residence
and healthcare services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
- and -
Walter Haines, Esq.
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Telephone: (562) 256-1047
Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
WELLS FARGO: Can Compel Arbitration in Cornelius Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLY CAMPBELL CORNELIUS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-11043 (LJL) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lewis J.
Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted Defendant Wells Fargo's motion to compel arbitration
pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), and to stay the
proceedings.
On Dec. 12, 2019, Plaintiff Cornelius filed on behalf of herself
and a putative class of others similarly situated a class action
complaint containing claims for violation of the New York General
Business Law Section 349 and breach of contract. The Plaintiff is
a citizen of South Carolina and owns and operates a small
restaurant in Columbia, South Carolina named Tios Mexican Cantina.
On two occasions, in April 2014 and again in October 2015, she
signed lease agreements with a financing company named Northern
Leasing Systems, Inc. to lease credit card processing equipment.
On April 29, 2014, she leased an Ingenico iCT220 pin pad for $6,342
to be paid in 48 monthly installments of $129 plus a $150
restocking fee at the end of the lease; the Plaintiff alleges that
the pin pad was worth approximately $150. On Oct. 29, 2015, she
leased a Dejavoo Z8 wireless pin pad and a VeriFone P1000 power
cord for $17,430 to be paid in 48 monthly installments of $360 plus
a $150 restocking fee at the end of the lease; the Plaintiff
alleges the equipment was worth approximately $210 and $20,
respectively. She apparently defaulted on the leases. On April 3,
2019, Northern Leasing obtained a default judgment against her in
the Civil Court of New York City in the amount of $9,822.52.
On May 20, 2019, Northern Leasing served an information subpoena
and retraining notice on the Defendant pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R.
5222(b). The restraining notice forbade the Defendant from
transferring any property in which the Plaintiff has an interest,
except upon direction of the sheriff or pursuant to an order of the
court, until the judgment or order is satisfied or vacated or one
year from the restraining notice had passed. The notice was issued
from the Civil Court of the City of New York, and it is alleged
that service was made on the Defendant in New York. In response to
the notice, the Defendant restrained $19,483 in funds on deposit in
the Plaintiff's South Carolina savings account with the Defendant.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant had a financial interest
in the enforcement of Northern Leasing's leases because it agreed
to accept assignment of Northern Leasing's leases as a security for
a loan to Northern Leasing and, pursuant to that loan, possessed
held all lessor rights under these leases. She alleges that the
Defendant had no legal basis for restraining her funds.
She argues that a New York court does not have jurisdiction to
seize property located in South Carolina, including bank accounts
at South Carolina branches of national banks. The Plaintiff
alleges that to enforce a New York judgment by seizing assets in
South Carolina, Northern Leasing had to domesticate the judgment
according to South Carolina law, which would have required her to
be given notice and an opportunity to appear and to seek relief
from a foreign judgment.
The Plaintiff argues that these facts support a claim against the
Defendant: by restraining her funds based on an undomesticated
foreign judgment served outside the state of South Carolina, the
Defendant deprived her of the rights guaranteed to her by South
Carolina law. She further alleges that the Defendant knew the
restraining notice was invalid and that its enforcement was
unlawful but it persisted nonetheless because of the financial
interest it had in the funds by virtue of the assignment in the
leases.
Northern Leasing is alleged generally to be a bad actor. In
November 2018, the Attorney General of New York and the Deputy
Chief Administrative Judge of the Civil Court for the City of New
York filed an action to void Northern Leasing's contracts, vacate
Northern Leasing's default judgments, force Northern Leasing to
disgorge the fraudulently obtained money, and ultimately dissolve
Northern Leasing.
Thus, the Plaintiff brings the claim not only on behalf of herself
but purportedly on behalf of a class of persons or entities in the
United States who (i) are or were judgment debtors of Northern
Leasing, (ii) hold or held deposit accounts with the Defendant, and
(iii) had funds in their Defendant accounts restrained pursuant to
process for the enforcement of judgments in favor of Northern
Leasing issuing from jurisdictions other than the jurisdiction in
which their the Defendant accounts were located during the Class
Period.
The Plaintiff brings two claims against the Defendant. First, she
alleges the Defendant violated New York General Business Law
Section 349, which provides that deceptive acts or practices in the
conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of
any service in New York are unlawful. Second, she alleges that
Defendant breached the agreement governing her Deposit Account when
it acted on legal process it knew to be invalid to restrain funds
in her accounts, for the purpose of advancing Wells Fargo's own
pecuniary interests at her expense.
In response to the Complaint, the Defendant filed a motion to
compel arbitration on Feb. 18, 2020, based on a clause in the
Deposit Account Agreement that mandates arbitration and expressly
prohibits the Plaintiff from commencing or participating in class
or representative actions.
Judge Liman finds that when applying for her Deposit Account, the
Plaintiff signed and submitted a consumer account application,
dated Dec. 16, 2011. In the Application, she acknowledged
receiving a copy of the Deposit Account Agreement and agreed to be
bound by its terms. The "applicable account agreement" is the
Deposit Account Agreement that contains an arbitration agreement.
In the Deposit Account Agreement, effective Oct. 15, 2011, the
agreement falls under the header "Binding arbitration."
It is thus apparent that the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate and that
her claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The
Complaint alleges that the Defendant breached its agreement with
her and violated the law by restraining funds in her account. But
that issue is a "dispute" or an "unresolved disagreement between
Wells Fargo and her" under the arbitration agreement.
In addition, the Plaintiff has failed to establish the elements of
waiver. First, the Defendant did not participate, either directly
or indirectly, in any dispute with the Plaintiff either as
defendant or as plaintiff. Second, even if the New York state
lawsuit that created the judgment named Defendant as a plaintiff or
one could substitute the name Northern Leasing for that of the
Defendant, there would be no waiver. Finally, the Defendant's
actions have not expressed its intent to litigate the dispute in
question or satisfied any of the La. Stadium factors. If the
Defendant acted wrongly in honoring the restraining notice, the
Plaintiff can push that claim in arbitration; the Plaintiff does
not identify anything that either Defendant or Northern Trust has
done in litigation that has prejudiced her ability to prosecute
that claim.
The parties do not dispute either that class waivers in arbitration
agreements generally are enforceable, or that the provision would
preclude class arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly,
Judge Liman will compel arbitration on an individual basis.
The Defendant has moved for a stay and the Plaintiff does not
oppose a stay. Accordingly, Judge Liman will stay the matter until
the arbitration is completed.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/j9urfd from Leagle.com.
WEST VIRGINIA: Prelim Injunction Bid in Baxley Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN BAXLEY, JR., ERIC L. JONES, SAMUEL STOUT, AMBER
ARNETT, EARL EDMONDSON, JOSHUA HALL, DONNA WELLS-WRIGHT, ROBERT
WATSON, HEATHER REED, and DANNY SPIKER, JR., on their own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BETSY JIVIDEN, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the West
Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation and THE WEST
VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, and SHELBY
SEARLS, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of Western
Regional Jail and Correctional Facility, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 3:18-1526, Consolidated No. 3:18-1533, 3:18-1436 (S.D. W. Va.),
Judge Robert C. Chambers of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction Regarding
Defendants' Prevention, Management, and Treatment of COVID-19.
The putative class action stems from allegations that the West
Virginia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("WVDCR") has
acted with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of
inmates at the time of admission to jails in West Virginia. The
Plaintiffs are divided into two putative classes: Class A, which
includes all persons who were at any time on or after Dec. 18,
2018, or who will be, admitted to a jail in West Virginia with a
discernable, treatable medical and/or mental health problem; and
Class B, which only includes all persons who were at any time on or
after Dec. 18, 2018, inmates housed at Western Regional Jail and
Correctional Facility, in Barboursville, West Virginia.
As the action entered its second year, the COVID-19 pandemic began
its rapid spread across the world and into West Virginia. Elected
officials reacted swiftly at the state and federal level, with both
the President of the United States and the Governor of West
Virginia declaring states of emergency in an attempt to slow the
spread of the coronavirus pandemic. Given the unique
characteristics of both jails and the disease, commentators and
public health officials have remarked upon the outsized danger it
may pose to prisoners and pretrial detainees who are housed in
confined spaces and who share many communal resources and spaces.
In light of these concerns, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion
for a Preliminary Injunction on March 25, 2020. They sought two
forms of injunctive relief. First, they moved for an order
requiring Defendants to develop, disclose, and implement a plan
that undertakes all appropriate actions to protect the Plaintiffs
and others who are similarly situated. Second, they requested the
Court order WVDCR to release a sufficient number of inmates to
reduce overcrowding and allow for appropriate social distancing
within the jails and prisons to protect medically vulnerable
inmates.
Given the unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court
ordered an accelerated briefing schedule in response to the
Plaintiffs' Motion. The Defendants timely filed their Response in
Opposition, and raised several objections to the Plaintiffs'
Motion. The Plaintiffs responded to many of these points in their
Reply filed days later.
The parties and the Court participated in a telephonic status
conference on April 1, 2020, during which the Defendants agreed to
provide redacted copies of their COVID-19 response plan to opposing
counsel and the Court for review. The Court issued an order
reflecting these discussions that same day, and the Defendants
provided a redacted copy of their response plan. The Plaintiffs
responded to the plan with a verified declaration from their expert
witness, Dr. Homer Venters, and the Defendants replied in turn with
their own set of affidavits and their own memorandum addressing his
concerns.
Judge Chambers proceeded with the hearing scheduled for April 6,
2020, and heard argument from the counsel on the merits of their
respective positions. After entertaining argument, he determined
that the Plaintiffs had not established a likelihood of success on
the merits of their claim for deliberate indifference. With the
evidence presently before the Court, it is clear that the
Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden. The Plaintiffs' purported
failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an insufficient
justification for denying their pending Motion.
Judge Chambers concludes that the Plaintiffs are right to be
concerned for their health the midst of an unprecedented pandemic
that has already transformed American life in fundamental ways.
The likelihood that they will face irreparable harm from the spread
of COVID-19 is no small matter, and is one that will only grow in
significance as the pandemic progresses. Yet the Court is not free
to ignore the steps the Defendants have already taken to address
the virus, which are comprehensive and based on best practices
promulgated by a source the Plaintiffs already appear to trust.
These facts make it exceedingly unlikely that the Plaintiffs could
succeed on the merits of their claim that the Defendants have acted
with deliberate indifference toward inmates' medical needs in light
of COVID-19. It would be redundant for the Court to order relief
that the Defendants are in the midst of granting, and so the Judge
concludes that a preliminary injunction is not warranted.
Nevertheless, it is worth reiterating that the coronavirus pandemic
is an ever-changing crisis that evolves by the hour more often than
by the day. If the Defendants' plan is unable to adequately
address the spread of COVID-19 in state prisons, the Plaintiffs
will likely have a much stronger likelihood of succeeding on the
merits of their claims. As noted at the hearing, Judge Chambers
believes that the Defendants would be served well by consulting
experts on disease transmission in prisons and taking their advice
seriously. He similarly believes that exercising available
furlough and other crowd-reduction policies available under West
Virginia law is a prudent step in view of the recommendations
contained in the Defendants' own plan. Nevertheless, he will not
immerse himself in the management of state prisons absent the most
extraordinary circumstances. Given the Defendants' actions, such
circumstances do not exist in West Virginia jails or prisons at
this time. The Plaintiffs' Motion will therefore be denied.
For the foregoing reasons and for those announced on the record at
the hearing, Judge Chambers denied the Plaintiffs' Motion. He
directed the Clerk to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order to the counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/q1T8l9 from Leagle.com.
[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
---------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting a webinar for plaintiff practitioners
on client intake for mass torts and class actions on Thurs., May
28
at 2 p.m. Eastern Time.
Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV
Lead generation is just half the battle. You still have to win
over
the client. Register now and learn the following:
-- Primary elements in responding to a lead
-- How to customize scripts for case, demographics
-- Developing effective screening criteria
-- Tactics in converting leads to plaintiffs on first
contact
-- Minimize lead loss
-- Publicity vs. conversion budgets
Benefits:
-- Optimize your marketing budget's ROI
-- Maximize the size of your class
-- Reduce acquisition cost per client
Tom Ball, Senior Vice President at Alert Communications, will
present what his company has learned after completing millions of
new client intakes for law firms and legal marketing agencies.
Thurs., May 28
2 p.m. Eastern
Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV
*********
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 ***