/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200522.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, May 22, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 103
Headlines
ACTIVE BRANDS: West Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
AEROCARE HOME: Hopkins Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
ALTRIA GROUP: Larimore et al. Sue Over Anticompetitive Market Deal
AMBRY GENETICS: Pascoe et al. Sue Over Patient Data Theft
AMERICAN FIRE: Spring House Files Suit in Pennsylvania Com. Pleas
ASPEN AMERICAN: Sued for Denying Business Interruption Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unfair Handling of PPP Applications
CAPE MAY, NJ: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Dearie Suit
CELGENE CORP: AMF Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Suit
CENTENE COMPANY: Whittenberg Seeks Conditional Class Certification
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Saucy Brew Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Khalid Sues Over Antitrust & Racketeering Claims
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Students File Class Action Over Fees Refund
CONNECTICUT: Class Certified in FAPE Program Suit
CREDIT CONTROL: Majesz Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Castanares Suit Seeks Refunds of Tickets
DMP COLOR: Bunting Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
DSA SPORTS INC: Begg Asserts Breach of ADA in California
DURHAM SCHOOL: Faces Muller Suit Over Failure to Provide Refund
EDU DOC: Trim Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
FINVOLUTION GROUP: Bid to Dismiss EDNY Consolidated Suit Pending
FORTERRA INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 2
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Sweet Suit Wants Airfare Refunds Not Coupons
GENERAL MOTORS: Bossart et al. Sue Over Tire Rim Defect
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Pensado Claims Kids' Booster Seats Unsafe
GREENE, MO: Hourly Employees Class Certified in Voorhis Suit
HATLEY USA INC: West Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
HERTZ CORP: Green Sues over Abrupt Termination
ILLINOIS: Cabello v. Gov. Pritzker Removed to N.D. Illinois
JOHNSON & WALES: Alexander Sues Over Failure to Refund Fees
JP MORGAN: Proctor Alleges US Treasury Futures Manipulation
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Starjem Sues Over Refusal to Cover COVID Losses
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Seeking Student Services Fee Refund
LIVANOVA PLC: 2nd Payment Made in 3T Device Suit
LIVE! CASINO: Day Seeks OT Pay, Tip Credits for Employees
LUCAS ASSOCIATES: Miller Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
M&T BANK: Kodra Sues in New York Over Employment Discrimination
MAJOR LEAGUE: Fans' Class Action Seeks Ticket Refund
MCKENZIE PAUL: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Zurakov Suit
MDL 2943: Consolidation of 11 Ski Pass Suits in Colorado Sought
MED-DATA INCORPORATED: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MIDLAND MORTGAGE: Garcia Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
MOBILE MINI: Stillman Sues Over Misleading Securities Statements
MOVING SOLUTIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Garza Suit
NASHVILLE TENNESSEE: FLSA Collective Action Authorized in McGill
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Tipich Balks at Mortgage Payment Collection
NEW YORK: Underpays Fire Protection Inspectors, Chalmers Claims
ONE AMERICAN BANK: Faces Famularcano Class Suit in California
ONEIDA COUNTY, NY: Faces Williamson Prisoner Suit in N.D.N.Y.
PENNSYLVANIA: Private Properties Files Class Suit in Pa. Sup. Ct.
PHH MORTGAGE: Mathews Suit Moved From Florida to N.D. Oklahoma
PLANET BEAUTY: Begg Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Davis Suit Over Defective Car Vent Clips
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Underpays Internal Wholesalers, Barron Says
RCSH OPERATIONS: Dix Seeks to Certify 2 FLSA & 2 FMWA Classes
RESET.COM LLC: Begg Alleges Violation under ADA in California
ROSETTE: Gingras Suit Transferred From D. Vermont to N.D. Texas
RYB EDUCATION: Qian Class Action Remains Stayed
RYB EDUCATION: Says Zhang Class Suit in Preliminary Stages
SELENE FINANCE: McNeil Files Suit in Florida
SERVICEMASTER CO: Cooley Files Suit in California
SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: June 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SONGWHALE LLC: Faces Uribe TCPA Class Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Amer Suit
SUNSHINE MAKERS: Mislabels Simple Green Products, Moran Alleges
SWOOP INC: Zawacki Sues Over Failure to Provide Full Refunds
TARGET CORP: Mislabels Acetaminophen Products, Chong Suit Claims
TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO: Newton Files Suit in Georgia
UNITED COLLECTION: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Tokar"
UNITED STATES: Campbell Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court
UNIVERSAL PROMOTE: Dillon Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Lee Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
USANA HEALTH: Lacasse Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VANDER SCHAAF: Gomez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
W.S. BADGER CO: West Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Raimo Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bryant Suit Transferred to California
WEST BEND: Paradigm Care Sues Over Refusal to Pay Insureds
WESTBRAE NATURAL: Faces Clark Class Suit in N.D. California
WESTGATE RESORTS: Moore Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
XTO ENERGY: Underpays Pipeline Inspectors, Isgett Claims
YRC WORLDWIDE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Lewis Class Suit
ZION OIL: Class Action Lead Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Case
[*] Breach of Contract Class Actions Filed Amid Covid-19 Pandemic
[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,691 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,400 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $264MM for PI Matters at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,710 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 121 Talcum Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Drops ERISA Suits vs. J&J over Talc Matters
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has $696MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $270MM Accrual at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Had $1BB Noncurrent Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $154MM Gross Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Faces Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.3BB Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 6,281 Bendix Claims Pending in March
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had $804.8MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Responds to Asbestos-Related Securities Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $498MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Had US$87MM Reserves at March 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 135 Cases at March 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Still Faces 591 Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Has 1,658 Exposure Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 770 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Estimates $85.8MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $540.6MM Asbestos Liability at March 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had $49.0MM Accrued Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 201 PI Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 808 Active Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.1BB Liability at March 31
*********
ACTIVE BRANDS: West Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Active Brands North America Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Mary West, other, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Active Brands North America Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03593 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2020).
Active Brands is a leading supplier of premium brand goods to
sports retail in the Nordic region.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
AEROCARE HOME: Hopkins Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LORI HOPKINS and KILA HAGLER,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. AEROCARE
HOME MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-04054-NKL
(W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action;
2. approving the form and dissemination of notice to the
potential collective action members;
3. appointing themselves as class representatives and their
counsel as class co-counsel; and
4. granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper under the circumstances.
According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants do not oppose their
motion for class certification, appointment of class
representatives, appointment of class counsel and approval of
notice to putative class members.
AeroCare is a provider of home oxygen therapy and respiratory
care.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew A. Clement, Esq.
Kari A. Schulte, Esq.
COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF
& LANDWEHR, P.C.
231 Madison
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Telephone: (573) 635-7977
Facsimile: (573) 635-7414
E-mail: mclement@cvdl.net
kschulte@cvdl.net
- and -
Ryan J. McDaniels, Esq.
Kimberly J.Z. Guthrie, Esq.
NEWMAN, COMLEY & RUTH P.C.
601 Monroe Street, Suite 301
P.O. Box 537
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Telephone: (573) 634-2266
Facsimile: (573) 636-3306
E-mail: ryan.m@ncrpc.com
guthriek@ncrpc.com
ALTRIA GROUP: Larimore et al. Sue Over Anticompetitive Market Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
DARAKA LARIMORE, ADAM MATSCHULLAT and KEITH MAY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALTRIA
GROUP, INC. and JUUL LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02999
(N.D. Cal., April 30, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the
California's Cartwright Act, the California's Unfair Competition
Law, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and
unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated persons or entities in the United States that
purchased e-cigarettes and/or pods indirectly from Juul Labs, for
personal use and not resale, from December 7, 2018 through and
until the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct
cease, allege that the Defendants engaged in anticompetitive
agreements in which Altria agreed to refrain from competing against
Juul in the United States market for closed-system electronic
cigarettes in return for a substantial ownership interest in Juul.
The Defendants' conduct has illegally restrained competition in the
relevant market in violation of federal antitrust laws.
On April 1, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also filed a
complaint against Altria and Juul and alleged that the Defendants'
conduct unreasonably restrained competition, and that their
relationship agreement substantially lessened competition in the
U.S. closed-system e-cigarettes market by eliminating competition
between the Defendants on price, innovation, promotional activity,
and shelf space.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' anticompetitive
conduct, entities that purchased Juul products were overcharged and
sustained injury to their business and property.
Altria Group, Inc. is a tobacco company headquartered at 6601 West
Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia.
Juul Labs, Inc. is a manufacturer of closed-system e-cigarettes
headquartered at 560 20th Street, San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
byrd@whafh.com
livesay@whafh.com
dejong@whafh.com
- and –
Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
burt@whafh.com
- and –
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
AMBRY GENETICS: Pascoe et al. Sue Over Patient Data Theft
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE PASCOE, COLETTE DOMINGUES, CYNTHIA MNICH, MARION FARRIER,
DEBORAH PANCOAST, ROSEMARY O'HARA, WILLIAM DUCKETT, NANCY VAN
TINE-SCINTO, MICHAEL ANNONI, ANNETTE DEMMINK, LISA NEUMANN, and
CHERYL TERRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 8:20-cv-00838-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's Consumer
Records Act, the California's Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, and the California's Consumer Privacy Act.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated persons in the U.S. whose personal and medical
information was compromised as a result of a data breach announced
by the Defendant on April 15, 2020, allege that the Defendant
failed to adequately protect the personal and medical information
of the Plaintiffs and Class members and failed to take security
precautions necessary in order to prevent a data breach incident
that occurred from January 22-24, 2020. The Defendant also failed
to timely notify the Plaintiffs and Class members about the
incident as they were informed on or about April 15, 2020. As a
direct and proximate result of the data breach, the Plaintiffs and
Class members have been placed at an imminent, immediate, and
continuing increased risk of harm from fraud and identity theft.
Ambry Genetics Corporation is a clinical genomic diagnostic company
that provides genetic screening services to patients to detect
disease-causing mutations, with its principal place of business and
headquarters in Aliso Viejo, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
- and –
Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telephone: (918) 588-3400
Facsimile: (918) 588-3400
E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com
AMERICAN FIRE: Spring House Files Suit in Pennsylvania Com. Pleas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Fire and
Casualty Company. The case is styled as Spring House Tavern Inc.,
on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. AMERICAN FIRE
AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2020-06069 (Pa. Com. Pleas,
Montgomery Cty., May 11, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Complaint Class Action."
American Fire & Casualty Company provides fire and casualty
insurance products and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Haggerty, Esq.
HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER, & KUPERSMITH, P.C.
1835 Market St, Suite 2700
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 350-6609
E-mail: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com
- and –
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
SCHMIDT KRAMER
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA
Telephone: 717-888-8888
Facsimile: 717-232-6467
- and –
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7225
Telephone: 215-238-1700
Facsimile: 215-238-1968
E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
ASPEN AMERICAN: Sued for Denying Business Interruption Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business, reports that federal
class action lawsuits have been filed against several insurance
companies for denying policy claims the plaintiffs had made to
protect against business interruptions -- specifically claims
related to the business closures mandated in the wake of the
COVID-19 pandemic.
According to a joint release from the law firms DiCello Levitt
Gutzler, The Lanier Law Firm, Burns Bowen Bair, and Daniels &
Tredennick, six insurance companies have been named as defendants.
The six insurers are Aspen American Insurance, Auto-Owners
Insurance, Lloyd's of London, Society Insurance, Oregon Mutual
Insurance, and Topa Insurance Company.
Plaintiffs for the lawsuit include a restaurant/nightclub in San
Diego, CA; a bridal retailer in Cleveland, OH; a Madison, WI-based
bakery; a chain of restaurants/bars in Minnesota; a St. Paul,
MN-based dental practice; a restaurant in Portland, OR; and an
NY-based restaurant group and pizzeria. Each of the plaintiffs are
represented by lawyers from the three aforementioned law firms.
The law firms said that each of the lawsuits claim that the
business purchased "special" property insurance coverage to protect
against business interruptions, or disruptions outside of their
control. These policies included business income coverage. The
firms also noted that all of these coverages either included or did
not expressly exclude losses caused by viral infections such as
COVID-19.
But despite all this, the law firms said that the insurers "refused
to uphold their contractual responsibilities for losses suffered
due to COVID-19, as well as losses caused by executive orders by
civil authorities and any efforts to prevent further property
damage or to minimize the suspension of business and continue
operations."
"Businesses nationwide have, for years, purchased expensive
insurance policies to protect them from losses exactly like those
they are currently enduring," said Adam Levitt, plaintiff
co-counsel and partner at DiCello Levitt Gutzler. "For many small
business owners trying to provide for their families and employees,
this type of insurance coverage was an additional expense that they
would have preferred not to carry but felt a responsibility to do
so. For insurers to now tell them, in the most challenging of
times, that the joke was on them and their policies were worthless,
is unethical and abhorrent."
The law firms' release noted that most property insurance policies
sold in the US -- including those sold by the defendants -- are
all-risk property damage policies.
"Insurers will deny almost every claim -- even the most legitimate
ones -- because that's just how they operate," said Mark Lanier,
plaintiff co-counsel and founder of The Lanier Law Firm. "But at
the end of the day, this really is a straightforward issue about
honoring their agreements. As our nation emerges from this horrific
pandemic, businesses of all sizes will be critical to restarting
the economy. In playing their usual claim-denial games, these
insurers are threatening the welfare of not only small-business
owners and their families, but the entire US economy."
"Countless businesses across the United States are pinning their
hopes of reopening and rehiring laid-off or furloughed employees on
proceeds from insurance," added Timothy Burns, partner at Burns
Bowen Bair.
Burns also commented that insurers thrive by selling protection
against all sorts of maladies, pocketing profits when material
events are avoided, but must honor policies on the occasion those
incidents occur.
"By refusing to do so, they are not running a business at all, but
a large-scale rigged carnival game where no matter the scenario,
the customer always loses," Burns remarked. "It's just not right,
and we will do everything in our power to ensure that these
businesses are made whole." [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unfair Handling of PPP Applications
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Infante, writing for Brewbound, reports that after being
shut out of receiving loans from the coronavirus relief bill's
Paycheck Protection Program, small business owners have filed class
action lawsuits against some of the country's biggest banks,
alleging unfair business practices and fraud.
Defendants include Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, U.S. Bank and
Wells Fargo. Los Angeles-based Stalwart Law Group filed all four
lawsuits on April 19 in the U.S. District Court Central District of
California.
The lawsuits contend that each bank decided against "processing
Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") applications on a first-come,
first-served basis as required by the rules governing that program"
and instead "prioritized loan applications seeking higher loan
amounts because processing those applications first generated
larger loan origination fees for the bank."
The plaintiffs in each suit include a builder, optometry office,
restaurant group, automotive repair shop, frozen yogurt parlor,
marketing agency, cyber defense provider and two law offices.
The class definition includes any California-based small businesses
that met the PPP's eligibility requirements, applied for a loan
through Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, U.S. Bank or Wells Fargo
and did not receive funds.
Though the company declined to comment on the lawsuit, Wells Fargo
told Brewbound in a statement it is "working as quickly as possible
to assist small business customers."
"We have mobilized thousands of employees and launched new
technology to better assist customers seeking assistance via the
Paycheck Protection Program," the company continued.
To qualify for a PPP loan, companies must have fewer than 500
employees or fewer employees than the U.S. Small Business
Administration's industry size standards. Loans are capped at 2.5
times the applicant's average monthly salary expenses and 75% of
the loan must be spent on payroll. The remaining 25% can be used
for rent, utilities and interest on mortgage or other debt. All
funds but those spent on non-mortgage debt interest will be
forgiven if the company has maintained its employee count by June
30.
Banks began accepting PPP applications on April 3. By April 16, the
SBA announced that all of the $349 billion allocation had been
promised. Since then, the program has drawn criticism for giving
money to larger businesses, such as upscale restaurant chain Ruth's
Chris Steak House, which received $20 million in PPP loans by
applying through two different subsidiaries.
The co-owners of Shake Shack announced on April 19 they had
returned the $10 million PPP loan that the fast casual chain had
received after securing "the additional capital we needed to ensure
our long term stability through an equity transaction in the public
markets."
In their announcement, Shake Shack CEO Randy Garutti and Danny
Meyer, the CEO of parent company Union Square Hospitality Group,
called for Congress to refill the fund, for applicants to be paired
with local banks and for a change from the June 30 deadline to a
six-month requirement instead.
"Shake Shack, like all restaurant businesses in America, is doing
the best we can to navigate these challenging times. We don't know
what the future holds. Our people would benefit from a $10 million
PPP loan, but we're fortunate to now have access to capital that
others do not. Until every restaurant that needs it has had the
same opportunity to receive assistance, we're returning ours."
California businesses received $33.4 billion in 112,967 loans, but
financial services firm Evercore ISI found that just 24% of the
state's small businesses eligible for assistance received it. Sens.
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) have asked
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and SBA administrator Jovita
Carranza to investigate the discrepancy in loan awards between
states.
"As California was the first state to issue a stay-at-home order on
March 19, our small businesses have been shut down longer than in
any other state," Feinstein and Harris wrote. "It is difficult to
understand why California's small businesses would qualify for so
much less aid than others."
Negotiations have begun in Congress for another aid package, and
the White House has pushed for it to include another $250 billion
for PPP loans.
The SBA published loan totals by industry, and the manufacturing
industry, which has a segment for breweries, received $40.9 billion
in 108,863 loans, about 12% of the total. However, many craft
breweries may fall under the accommodations and food service
category, which received $30.5 billion in 161,876 loans.
Framingham, Massachusetts-based Jack's Abby Craft Lagers told
Brewbound its PPP application was approved and it received funding
on April 17.
"Over the weekend, we were able to bring back a significant portion
of our team who had previously been reduced hours back to full
time," a spokeswoman wrote in an email.
Other craft breweries known to have received PPP loans include
Minneapolis' Surly Brewing, Saint Louis, Missouri's 2nd Shift
Brewing and Watford City, North Dakota-based Stonehome Brew Pub.
The Bruery and its sister brand Offshoot Beer Co., based in Orange
County, California, were excluded from this round of PPP funding.
[GN]
CAPE MAY, NJ: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Dearie Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GERALD DEARIE and JERMAINE
MILLS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
persons, and FREDERICK SCHARTNER, individually, Plaintiffs, v. CAPE
MAY COUNTY; CAPE MAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; and UNKNOWN:
CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, in their individual capacities, Case No.
1:15-cv-08785-RMB-JS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Joel Schneider
entered an order:
1. certifying a Settlement Class of:
"all male pre-trial detainees and/or convicted inmates who
were placed into the custody of the Cape May County
Correctional Center and subjected to overcrowding and
related conditions of confinement pursuant to a custom,
policy, or practice of Cape May County during the period
of December 21, 2013 through January 15, 2019".
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) all persons
who timely exercise their rights under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
to opt-out of the Settlement; and (2) any judicial
officer(s) presiding over this action and the immediate
family members of such judicial officer(s).;
2. appointing Gerald Dearie as Class Representative of the
Settlement Class;
3. appointing Surinder K. Aggarwal, Esq. as Class Counsel;
4. preliminarily approving the Settlement;
5. directing that the Notice of Settlement shall be mailed on
or before Monday, June 1, 2020;
6. appointing Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator, whose reasonable fees and costs shall be
paid by defendant, Cape May County;
7. directing the Settlement Administrator to perform and
comply with all notice and administration duties ascribed
to it in the Settlement Agreement, the Preliminary
Approval Order, and subsequent Orders that may be entered
by the Court in this litigation. The Defendant shall pay
the costs of administration incurred by Rust Consulting,
Inc.;
8. directing Settlement Class Members who wish to either opt-
out of the Settlement Class or object to the Settlement
must do so no later than Monday, August 3, 2020;
9. directing any member of the Settlement Class wishing to
opt-out of the Settlement Class must submit a written
request for exclusion; and
10. scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing on Tuesday, September
22, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3C.
Notwithstanding any contrary language that may exist in the
Settlement Agreement, neither the Defendant, Cape May County, nor
its carrier, are required to issue payment through the Settlement
Administrator for the sum of $525,000, the maximum capped amount
approved for distribution to approved Settlement Class Members.
Instead, within 20 days after completion of the claims period, and
upon receipt of the final opt-out list and the list of approved
claims by the defendant’s counsel (i.e. the conclusion of the
claims process), the Defendant's insurer, Travelers, shall furnish
to the Settlement Administrator all sums requested by the
Settlement Administrator that are due and owing to the list of
approved claimant Settlement Class Members. The payments will be
distributed to the approved claimants by the Settlement
Administrator.
The Court finds that, for settlement purposes only, the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied. The
Court finds, in the specific context of this Settlement, that the
following requirements are met: predominance of common issues; and
superiority of the class action mechanism.
Cape May County is the southernmost county in the U.S. state of New
Jersey and the southernmost county of the geographic region defined
as the Northeastern United States by the U.S. Census Bureau.[CC]
CELGENE CORP: AMF Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: CELGENE CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:18-cv-04772-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff
AMF Pensionsforsakring AB move the Court for an order:
1. certifying the action as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3);
2. appointing itself as Class Representative of the proposed
Class; and
3. appointing Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Class
Counsel and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody &
Agnello, P.C. and Seeger Weiss, LLP as Co-Liaison Counsel
for the Class.
AMF is a life insurance company based out of Stockholm,
Sweden.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
decklund@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger
SEEGER WEISS, LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-9100
- and -
Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
Joshua E. D’Ancona, Esq.
Margaret E. Mazzeo, Esq.
Nathan A. Hasiuk, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: azivitz@ktmc.com
mmustokoff@ktmc.com
jdancona@ktmc.com
mmazzeo@ktmc.com
nhasiuk@ktmc.com
- and -
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq.
Brenna D. Nelinson, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1448
E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com
adam@blbglaw.com
brenna.nelinson@blbglaw.com
CENTENE COMPANY: Whittenberg Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SHELLEY WHITTENBERG,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CENTENE COMPANY OF TEXAS, L.P.; CENTENE CORPORATION; and CENTENE
MANAGEMANT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00353-DAE (W.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying a class of:
"all Service Coordinators employed by the Defendants after
March 20, 2017"; and
2. granting approval and distribution of notice and for
disclosure of contact information.
The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of all current and former
employees of the Defendants, to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Centene offers healthcare solutions in Texas.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Nicole S. LeFave, Esq.
Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq.
Douglas E. Smith, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400
Austin, TX 78701
E-mail: nlefave@littler.com
bsmartell@littler.com
desmith@littler.com
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Saucy Brew Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saucy Brew Works, LLC, on behalf of itself and all those similarly
situated businesses and entities v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. CV 20 932532 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., May
12, 2020), seeks declaratory judgment for breach of contract due to
the Defendant's use of inapplicable exclusions to deny claims for
Business Interruption, Extra Expense and Civil Authority claims
related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
CIC insured the Plaintiff under a commercial/business owner policy,
bearing policy, number ETD0448045. The certified Policy is in the
possession of CIC. Under the Policy, the Plaintiff agreed to make
premium payments to CIC in exchange for CIC's promise to indemnify
the Plaintiff for losses including, but not limited to, business
income loss at its commercial property location(s). The Policy is
currently in full effect, providing property, business personal
property, business income and extra expense, and additional
coverages for the effective period, which includes January 1, 2020,
to the present.
The Plaintiff says it faithfully paid policy premiums to CIC,
specifically to provide additional coverage for "Business Income
and Extra Expense Coverage" in the event of business closures by
order of Civil Authority. The Policy is an "all-risk" policy, in so
far as it provides that a covered cause of loss under the policy
means a fortuitous cause or event, not otherwise excludes, which
actually occurs during this policy period. Here, the Plaintiff
contends its operations have been suspended, and access to
properties prohibited, due to a covered cause of loss, and no
specific exclusion(s) applies to reasonably justify the denial of
Plaintiff claims.
The Plaintiff alleges that CIC has accepted the policy premiums
with no intention of providing any coverage under the Policy's
Business Income, Extra-Expense or Civil Authority Coverage Sections
due to a loss and/or shutdown from a pandemic, i.e. the COVID-19
pandemic. The Defendant has, in fact, denied the Plaintiff claim by
way of denial letter issued to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2020. Had
CIC intended to exclude claims for the COVID-19 pandemic made under
the subject Policy(s), it would have, and could have, included the
express exclusionary language used in the past to deny claims,
which specifically included the term "pandemic" and "SARS," but CIC
failed to do so related to the Plaintiff, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff operates a bar/restaurant in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
CIC is a large property and casualty insurer, with its principal
place of business located in Fairfield, Ohio, and sells insurance
in Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
CONNICK LAW, LLC
25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101
Beachwood, OH 44122
Phone: 216-364-0512
Facsimile: 216-609-3446
Email: tconnick@connicklawllc.com
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Khalid Sues Over Antitrust & Racketeering Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ATM Shafiqul Khalid, an individual, and Xencare Software, Inc., on
behalf of similarly situated v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, AKA John Doe n, Case No. 2:20-cv-00711-RAJ (W.D.
Wash., May 11, 2020), wants the Court to determine if a corporation
gets liability in antitrust and racketeering for a deliberate and
extortionate act of detaching constitutional rights from the
constitutional entity and converting the constitutional protection
into pure contractual rights.
The lawsuit is brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for
allegedly creating restraint of trade with overbroad employee
agreement among Citrix and its employees.
On September 18, 2006, the Plaintiff signed an employment agreement
with Citrix System titled Confidentiality and Employee
Non-Disclosure Agreement ("Employee Agreement"). During his
employment with Citrix, Khalid filed two patent applications that
resulted in US patent 8,286,219("'219 patent") and 8,782,637("'637
patent") on his own time and dime. The agreement violated WA public
policy under RCW 49.44.140 and RCW 19.86.020. The agreement had a
choice of law provision requiring construction of the contract
under Florida law.
On Oct 3, 2011, Citrix terminated Khalid, before termination Khalid
signed a Severance Agreement with Citrix amounting $30,757. Khalid
earned that severance per established Citrix policy based on
Khalid's year of service and because the nature of separation was
no fault at Khalid. On Oct 25, 2011, Citrix, through its counsel,
Kellan Ponikiewicz, Esq., claimed ownership to all patent
applications filed by Khalid--"which may be used in relation" with
"products sold by Citrix"--an illegal language in violation of RCW
49.44.140(1), according to the complaint. In 2018, WA court
reformed the agreement by removing offending language Citrix relied
on. Citrix withheld Khalid's severance money.
According to the complaint, Citrix intentionally withheld Khalid's
severance money for 9+ years to date, forced Khalid and his team to
spend more than $2.8 million by refusing $50,000/patent license to
cause fear in Khalid of financial loss and pressure Khalid to give
up his patent right. Citrix asserted right to Khalid patent using
an illegal and unenforceable Employee Agreement that equates Citrix
made the claim without any contractual basis. Citrix's attempt to
interpret its illegal contract based on its wish to claim Khalid's
patent in collaboration with Microsoft with threat equates to
robbery by force, threat, fear, or bad faith.
Because of Citrix's wrongful action, the Plaintiffs contend that
they sustained damages in the state court proceeding: a) at least
$4 million in cost, fees and interest b) recovery of $27 million
lost profit c) accumulate interest on judgment d) damages
identified in state court to make it treble. The Plaintiffs argue
that Citrix is responsible for treble damage for violating the
Antitrust and Racketeering Act.
Mr. Khalid worked for Citrix from September 18, 2006, until October
3, 2011.
Citrix provides software and networking solutions for enterprise
customers.
The Plaintiff ATM Shafiqul Khalid, of Redmond, Washington
(atmkhalid@gmail.com), appears pro se.[BN]
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Students File Class Action Over Fees Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNN reports that class-action lawsuits have been filed against
three New York universities by students who argue the schools have
failed to adequately refund or reimburse students for tuition and
other fees they paid to have in-person, on-campus classes and other
activities.
The lawsuits were filed against Columbia University, Pace
University and Long Island University, all private institutions
located in the New York City area.
The students argue that not only is online-only instruction less
valuable and should cost students less, it is not what they paid
for. The students are calling on their universities to acknowledge
what is being lost in the transition from in-person, hands-on
learning to online instruction, such as interaction with
professors, access to campus facilities, housing, meals, and social
interaction, and asking them to adjust the financial burden
accordingly.
Although the undergraduate students acknowledged that the closing
of their campuses was necessary given the spread of the
coronavirus, the plaintiffs argued that transitioning classes
online starting in March and closing campuses forced students to
miss a significant portion of the semester that they had paid for.
While Columbia University has announced that it will be issuing
full pro-rata refunds for room and board fees, the university
Financial Services team made clear on its website that tuition will
not be refunded as long as instruction continues, but it said it
would rebate a portion of the facilities and student life fees.
"Tuition and fees will continue to pay for the delivery of
instruction, as well as the associated costs of academic support
services. As long as instruction continues, tuition will not be
refunded," the Financial Services team wrote on the university
website.
In the lawsuit against Columbia, the student, who filed the class
action suit anonymously, argues that the university "breached the
contract with Plaintiff and the Fees Class by moving all classes
for the Spring 2020 semester to online distance learning platforms,
constructively evicting students from campus, and closing most
campus buildings and facilities, without reducing or refunding fees
accordingly."
The lawsuit claims that the university has "refused and continues
to refuse to offer any refund whatsoever with respect to the
tuition that has already been paid."
The student also pointed out that continuing to pay for an
on-campus undergraduate degree in social work for the spring,
summer and fall semesters, which costs approximately $58,612, is
considerably more expensive in comparison to the university's
online program, where the tuition for the same degree costs
$48,780.
The Columbia student argued that while the university has refunded
some of the fees, "such refund has come with no explanation,
appears to be arbitrary, and in any event, is wholly insufficient."
In the filing, the individual noted that out of $1,065 in mandatory
fees paid by the student, only $119 was refunded.
Long Island University student Nicolas Irizarry filed a class
action suit against his university on April 21, seeking refunds
because he says his educational experience dramatically changed due
to the coronavirus outbreak. Irizarry had paid approximately
$21,827 in tuition and fees to Long Island University and has not
been provided a refund for any portion of his payment.
A similar lawsuit was filed on April 23 by Pace University student
Xaviera Marbury. The lawsuit says the university "has either
refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, housing, meals,
fees and other costs that Defendant is no longer providing, or has
provided inadequate and/or arbitrary reimbursement that does not
fully compensate Plaintiff and members of the Class for their
loss."
Marbury claims that while the university has said it will issue
campus housing refunds of $2,000 for students living on the New
York campus and $1,600 for students at the Pleasantville and Haub
Law campuses, "this planned refund is both completely arbitrary and
wholly inadequate."
Marbury said the rent for her dorm in New York was $9,380 for the
semester, which began January 27 and was scheduled to end on May
16. Marbury left campus on March 11 for spring break.
Pace University spokeswoman Marie Boster said in a statement to CNN
that while the university has not been served yet with the lawsuit,
"housing fee adjustments for students who had to leave the
residence halls are being issued. We are planning to use CARES Act
funding to support our students when it is available."
The CARES Act is the coronavirus relief fund passed by Congress
earlier this year.
CNN has reached out to Columbia University and Long Island
University for comment and has not yet received a response.
Marbury claimed in her class-action lawsuit that Pace University
has "refused and continues to refuse to offer any refund whatsoever
on its meal plans." The university's website says unused meal plan
funds will roll over to the fall semester, and for graduating
students, the unused portion of their spring meal plan will be
refunded.
The lawsuits against Columbia and Pace Universities were the result
of petitions that had been circulating those campuses, collecting
thousands of signatures to try to pressure the institutions to give
refunds.
The students at Columbia and Pace argue that the college's
endowments -- which the lawsuits estimate at $10.9 billion and $182
million, respectively -- coupled with the money it is eligible to
receive from the CARES Act, places the institutions in the
financial position to meet the students' request. [GN]
CONNECTICUT: Class Certified in FAPE Program Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as A.R., on behalf of a class of
those similarly situated v. CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01197-CSH (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Charles S.
Haight, Jr. entered an order:
1. certifying the class members' claims for class-wide
injunctive and declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and
also certifying the class members' claims for compensatory
education under Rule 23(b)(3). Both classes are defined as
follows:
"all individuals who were over 21 and under 22 within two
years before the filing of this action or will turn 21
during the pendency of this action who are provided or
were provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE)
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) by any Local Education Agency (LEA) in the State of
Connecticut and who, but for turning 21, would otherwise
qualify or would have qualified for a FAPE until age 22
because they have not or had not yet earned a regular high
school diploma"; and
2. appointing Attorney Jason H. Kim of Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, The Law Offices of Sonja L.
Deyoe P.C., and Disability Rights Connecticut as counsel
for both classes.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) against Connecticut State Board of
Education, alleging that the Board's enforcement of age limitations
to special education established by Conn. Gen. Stat. violates the
Individuals with IDEA.
The Connecticut State Department of Education is a branch of the
state government of Connecticut in the United States. The agency is
headquartered at 450 Columbus Boulevard in Hartford.[CC]
CREDIT CONTROL: Majesz Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Chaim Majesz, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Credit
Control Services, Inc., doing business as: Credit Collection
Services, Case No. 1:20-cv-02137-ARR-VMS (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Credit Control Services, Inc., was founded in 1966. The Company's
line of business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Castanares Suit Seeks Refunds of Tickets
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Castanares and Kristin Sullivan, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA AG, a
German public limited company, Case No. 2:20-cv-04261 (C.D. Cal.,
May 11, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to provide
contractually mandated refunds to passengers with tickets for
flights that have been canceled by Lufthansa for which the original
outbound flight originates within the United States.
According to the complaint, Lufthansa cancelled the Plaintiffs'
outbound flight. Despite cancelling the Plaintiffs' flight,
Lufthansa has not issued the Plaintiffs a refund as required by the
Conditions of Carriage. The Conditions of Carriage require that
Lufthansa issue the refund to the Plaintiffs automatically--i.e.
without any refund request from the Plaintiffs. Despite having no
obligation to request a refund, the Plaintiffs did so. Despite
making that request, Lufthansa still has not issued a refund to the
Plaintiffs. Lufthansa's Conditions of Carriage do not provide any
exceptions to its obligation to provide a refund in the event of
flight cancellation.
The Conditions of Carriage state unequivocally, and without
restriction, that "we will give you a refund if we cancel a
flight," the Plaintiffs note. Accordingly, COVID-19 related issues,
whether direct or indirect, do not absolve Lufthansa of its refund
obligations, the Plaintiffs contend. They insist that unless a
purchaser affirmatively elects an alternative to a refund (i.e. to
rebook or accept a voucher) a refund must issue. In other words,
the Plaintiffs add, the default upon cancellation is that Lufthansa
must issue a refund.
The Plaintiffs purchased round-trip tickets on Lufthansa for travel
from Los Angeles to Paris.
Deutsche Lufthansa AG's is a German public limited company whose
operations include commercial flights originating within the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason M. Frank, Esq.
Andrew D. Stolper, Esq.
Scott H. Sims, Esq.
FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP
19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 855
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 201-2400
Facsimile: (949) 201-2405
Email: jfrank@lawfss.com
astolper@lawfss.com
ssims@lawfss.com
- and -
Robert B. Owens, Esq.
Llinda Gach Ray, Esq.
OWENS & GACH RAY
10323 Santa Monica Blvd., #102
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 553-6611
Facsimile: (310) 553-2179
Email: rowens@ogrlaw.com
lgachray@ogrlaw.com
DMP COLOR: Bunting Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DMP Color, LLC. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. DMP
Color, LLC, doing business as: dphue.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-02140
(E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dmp Color, LLC (trade name Dphue) is in the Cosmetics, Perfumes,
and Hair Products business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
DSA SPORTS INC: Begg Asserts Breach of ADA in California
--------------------------------------------------------
D.S.A. Sports, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Bruce
Begg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. D.S.A. Sports, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03177
(N.D. Cal., May 8, 2020).
DSA SPORTS, Inc., doing business as Sports fever, distributes
sports apparels and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
The Law Offices of Jonathan A. Stieglitz
11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Tel: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
DURHAM SCHOOL: Faces Muller Suit Over Failure to Provide Refund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justine Muller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES, L.P., d/b/a MURPHY
TRANSPORTATION, DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES, AND VOGEL BUS COMPANY; and
HOLDING II, L.L.C., DURHAM, Case No. 3:20-cv-05813-BRM-LHG (D.N.J.,
May 12, 2020), seeks a refund of fees paid to the Defendants for
transportation for the 2019-2020 school year.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid fees to
DSS for school transportation for the 2019-2020 academic school
year, and who, because of school closures in response to the Novel
Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the benefit of
the services for which they paid, without having been refunded the
portion of the fees for services paid for that were not provided.
As a result of the closure of educational facilities due to the
global COVID-19 pandemic, the Defendants have not provided the
transportation services that the Plaintiff and the putative class
contracted and paid for, the Plaintiff contends. Nonetheless, she
notes, DSS has not refunded any fees for the 2019-2020 school
year.
The Plaintiff and the putative class are, therefore, entitled to a
refund of fees for transportation services that Defendants have not
provided, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks, for
herself and Class members, the Defendants' disgorgement of the
pro-rated portion of fees, proportionate to the amount of time that
remained in the 2019-2020 school year when the Defendants ceased
providing transportation services.
The Plaintiff is an individual, who paid DSS fees for
transportation services for the 2019-2020 school year.
DSS is a school bus operator providing student transportation
throughout the United States, and currently operating in 32
states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bharati O. Sharma, Esq.
Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Phone: (732) 545-7900
Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
Email: bsharma@wolflawfirm.net
awolf@wolflawfirm.net
EDU DOC: Trim Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
LUCINE TRIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDU DOC SUPPORT LLC, DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03995 (C.D. Cal., April 30,
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 numerous calls from
Defendant on her cellular telephone ending in -2347 beginning on or
around November 26, 2019. Allegedly, Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" and an artificial or prerecorded voice"
seeking to sell or solicit its business services.
Plaintiff asserts that she had not provided any personal
information to Defendant and "prior express consent" to receive
Defendant's calls.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, and treble
damages.
Edu Doc Support LLC is an educational consulting company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
FINVOLUTION GROUP: Bid to Dismiss EDNY Consolidated Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
FinVolution Group said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the
class action suit entitled, In re PPDAI Group Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 18-cv-6716-FB-JO, is pending.
Starting in September 2018, the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors, the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering in November 2017, and the
Company's agent for the service of process in the U.S. have been
named as defendants in putative securities class actions captioned
Yizhong Huang v. FinVolution Group, et al., Case No. 654482/2018
(New York County of the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
filed on September 10, 2018) (the "Huang Case"); Ravindra Vora v.
FinVolution Group, et al., Case No. 654777/2018 (New York County of
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, filed on September 27,
2018) (the "Vora Case"); Lai v. FinVolution Group, et al. Case No.
1:2018-cv-06716 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, filed on November 26, 2018) (the "Lai Case"); and Goyal
v. FinVolution Group, et al. Case No. 2:2019-cv-00168 (U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed on
January 9, 2019) (the "Goyal Case").
These actions allege that defendants made misstatements and
omissions in connection with the Company's initial public offering
in November 2017 in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Lai Case also advances claims under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
On October 16, 2018, the Supreme Court of the State of New York
consolidated the two state court lawsuits (the Huang Case and the
Vora Case) under the caption In re PPDAI Group Securities
Litigation, No. 654482/2018 (the "New York State Action").
On December 17, 2018, the plaintiffs in the New York State Action
filed a consolidated amended complaint, which the Company and
certain other defendants moved to dismiss. On July 31, 2019, the
Company and certain other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
New York State Action.
On February 26, 2020, the Court in the New York State Action
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.
The Company and certain other defendants have appealed the partial
denial of their motion, and that appeal is in the process of being
briefed.
On February 21, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York consolidated the two federal court lawsuits
(the Lai Case and the Goyal Case) under the caption In re PPDAI
Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-6716-FB-JO (the
"Federal Court Action"), appointed lead plaintiffs of the Federal
Court Action, and approved a scheduling stipulation for the filing
of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint and the defendants'
responsive pleadings.
On April 22, 2019, plaintiffs in the Federal Court Action filed a
second amended complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Federal Court Action,
which was fully briefed as of January 17, 2020, and remains
pending.
FinVolution said, "As such, the Company is currently not in a
position to estimate the possible loss or possible range of loss,
if any, associated with the resolution of the lawsuits.
FinVolution Group develops online consumer finance platform. The
Company offers credit risk assessment, fraud detection, big data,
automated loan transaction, and artificial intelligence solutions.
FinVolution Group serves clients in China.
FORTERRA INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Forterra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a final hearing to
consider approval of the settlement in a securities class action is
set for July 21, 2020.
Beginning on August 14, 2017, four plaintiffs filed putative class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against various defendants. On July
27, 2018, an order was entered consolidating the lawsuits into a
single action (the "Securities Action") and transferring the venue
of the case from the Eastern District of New York to the Northern
District of Texas.
Pursuant to an agreed scheduling order, plaintiffs in the
Securities Action filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint on
November 30, 2018.
The Securities Action is brought by two plaintiffs individually and
on behalf of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the
IPO and is brought against the Company, certain of its current and
former officers and directors, Lone Star and certain of its
affiliates, and certain banks that acted as underwriters of the
initial public offering (IPO).
The Securities Action generally alleges that the Company's
registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with the IPO
(the "Registration Statement") contained false or misleading
statements and/or omissions of material facts.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege the Registration Statement (1) made
false and/or misleading statements about the Company's ability to
generate organic growth through cross-selling initiatives amongst
the Company's various businesses while failing to disclose that the
Company had not adequately integrated acquisitions, had not begun
rolling out its cross-selling initiative, and that its businesses
were submitting competing bids against one another, and (2) made
false or misleading statements regarding the existence of certain
accounting practices and alleged material weaknesses in the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting, including the
existence of and accounting for bill and hold transactions, the
lack of sufficient accounting personnel, the lack of effective
internal controls to ensure costs were properly and accurately
accrued, resulting in misstated costs and profits in the Company's
2016 financial statements, and the making of inventory accounting
entries without adequate substantiation or documentation.
The Securities Action asserts claims under Section 11 and Section
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities
Act") and seeks (1) class certification under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, (2) damages suffered by plaintiffs and other class
members, (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, (4) reasonable
counsel fees and expert fees, and other costs and expenses
reasonably incurred, and (5) other relief the court deems
appropriate.
On February 15, 2019, the Securities Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss all claims in the case based on plaintiffs' failure to
state a claim. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on
May 1, 2019, and the court has not yet ruled on the motion. A
mediation of the Securities Action occurred in August 2019.
On November 4, 2019, the parties to the Securities Action entered
into a settlement agreement that is intended to fully and finally
resolve all claims in the Securities Action.
On January 4, 2020, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval for the settlement and providing for notice. Approval of
the settlement in the Securities Action is set for final hearing on
July 21, 2020, but approval cannot be guaranteed. The terms of the
settlement are expected to be paid by the Company's insurance.
Forterra, Inc. manufactures and sells pipe and precast products the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. It operates through Drainage
Pipe & Products; and Water Pipe & Products segments. Forterra, Inc.
was founded in 2016 and is headquartered in Irving, Texas.
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Sweet Suit Wants Airfare Refunds Not Coupons
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Sweet and Stephanie Faust, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, a Colorado
Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01340-RM-NRN (D. Colo., May 12,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for breach of contract and
seeks an order requiring the Defendant to, among other things:
refrain from issuing coupons in lieu of refunds to any Class
member, who has not requested coupons; and pay damages and/or
restitution to the Plaintiffs and Class members.
In the midst of the greatest public health and economic crisis in
living memory, the Defendant has sought to shift its losses onto
its innocent passengers, furthering the financial hardship endured
by people across the country, according to the complaint. Each of
the Defendant's airfare tickets encompasses a contractual agreement
between it and its passengers. That agreement gives passengers the
right to a refund if their flight is cancelled.
With mounting cancellations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
Defendant has sought to refrain from paying out the refunds for
cancelled flights to which its passengers are entitled, the
Plaintiffs contend.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a
class of similarly situated individuals, who were deprived of
refunds for cancelled flights. The Defendant has quietly sought to
force its passengers to endure the financial losses that its own
contract created for it in the entirely foreseeable scenario that
world occurrences would disrupt the domestic travel industry, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased tickets from the Defendant.
Frontier is a major north American airline company that carried
approximately 22 million passengers in 2019 and is one of the
nation's largest air carriers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
Theodore Maya, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
- and –
David R. Dubin, Esq.
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
Phone: 313-392-0015
Fax: 313-392-0025
Email: ddubin@ldclassaction.com
ncoulson@ldclassaction.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Bossart et al. Sue Over Tire Rim Defect
-------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BOSSART, RONNIE E. BARKER, STEVEN M. CHOOKAZIAN, ERIC
CZAJKA, PHILLIP MIRENDA, CHRISTA ROCHFORD, DERROL TURNER, and TROY
WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-11057-BAF-DRG (E.D. Mich., April 30, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of consumer
protection laws, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Consumer Fraud
Act, the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and
breach of express warranty.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated all persons or entities in the United States who
owned or leased a 2015-2019 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 or 2017-2019
Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport, allege that the Defendant concealed
and/or knowingly failed to disclose to the public that the Class
vehicles contain a significant defect in the tire rims. The rims
are unreasonably prone to bending and cracking under ordinary use,
which necessitates costly repairs and/or replacement. The bending
and cracking can lead to a loss of tire pressure, diminished
control and handling of the vehicle, or even a puncture of the tire
causing dangerous tire blowouts. The Plaintiffs claim that the
Defendant also refused to provide coverage under the warranty when
a Class member presents a Class vehicle to a GM authorized
dealership with the defect. As a result of the Defendant's wrongful
conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members are forced to pay
expensive repair and replacement costs.
General Motors LLC is an automobile manufacturer with its principal
place of business located at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit,
Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
- and –
Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
LEVAN LAW GROUP LLC
One Logan Square – 27th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6933
Telephone: (215) 561-1500
Facsimile: (215) 827-5390
E-mail: pmuhic@levanlawgroup.com
- and –
Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
- and –
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6487
Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
kjustice@fklmlaw.com
- and –
Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
KEHOE LAW FIRM PC
Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 1020
1500 JFK Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 792-6676
Facsimile: (215) 792-6676
E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Pensado Claims Kids' Booster Seats Unsafe
-----------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO PENSADO, JR., 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-04044
(C.D. Cal., May 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranties, breach of
implied warranties, unjust enrichment and violations of State
Consumer Fraud Acts, the California False Advertising Act, the
California Unfair Competition Law, and the California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant is engaged
in false and deceptive labeling and marketing of its TurboBooster
and Affix booster seats because it claims to provide extra
protection to children as light as 30 pounds and as young as three
years-old during frontal, side, rear and rollover crashes. However,
in reality, the Defendant designs its own testing, and despite its
claims that it performs rigorous side-impact testing, the Defendant
did not publish or share internal crash test results and admit that
it has set own testing protocols. The Defendant's deceptive conduct
could put the Plaintiff's and Class members' children at risk of
serious injury or even death during side-impact accidents.
Graco Children's Products, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer,
marketer, seller, and distributor of booster seats throughout the
United States, with principal place of business at 6655 Peachtree
Dunwoody Road, Atlanta, Georgia.
Newell Brands DTC, Inc. is a booster seat manufacturing company
with principal place of business at 6655 Peachtree Dunwoody Road,
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
16748 McCormick Street
Los Angeles, CA 91436
Telephone: (917) 471-1894
E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and –
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and –
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Martha Geer, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
martha@wbmllp.com
pat@wbmllp.com
GREENE, MO: Hourly Employees Class Certified in Voorhis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as HOMAS VOORHIS and REGINALD
LEWIS, individually, and on behalf of a Class of others similarly
situated v. GREENE COUNTY, Case No. 6:19-cv-03257-SRB (W.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all persons who, at any time from July 19, 2016 to
January 10, 2020, were employed by Defendant as an hourly
employee in the Greene County Jail while holding a rank
lower than Sergeant and were identified by Defendant as a
class member on the list attached to the Settlement
Agreement."
Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a)
all federal court judges who have presided over this case
and their spouses and anyone within three degrees of
consanguinity from those judges and their spouses, and (b)
all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the
Settlement Class.
2. appointing Thomas Voorhis and Reginal Jackson as Class
Representatives;
3. appointing Lear Werts LLP and Curran Law Firm, LLC as
counsel for the class;
4. approving preliminarily the settlement of this action as
set forth in the Settlement Agreement as being fair, just,
reasonable and adequate to the class members;
5. directing Class counsel to issue Class Notice no later
than 10 days after entry of this Order by First-Class U.S.
Mail.;
6. scheduling July 1, 2020 as objection/opt-out date; and
7. scheduling final approval hearing to be held before the
Court on July 31, 2020.
The Court said, "The Class as defined meets the requirements of
Rule 23 as follows: The class members are sufficiently
ascertainable having been specifically identified on the list of
class members; and all class members have standing as the complaint
alleges a sufficient concrete harm."
Greene County is a county located in the U.S. state of Missouri. As
of the 2010 census, its population was 275,174, making it the
fourth most-populous county in Missouri.[CC]
HATLEY USA INC: West Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Hatley USA, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary
West, other, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hatley USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03594 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2020).
Hatley USA, Inc. provides online apparels. The Company offers
women's, boy's, and girl's apparels such as rain, sleep, and swim
out wears, as well as accessories, hats, sunglasses, and boot
liners. Hatley USA serves customers in the Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
HERTZ CORP: Green Sues over Abrupt Termination
----------------------------------------------
The case, ARLEAN GREEN, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-01006 (M.D. Fla., April 30, 2020)
arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act).
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the other Class members
were employees of Defendant who were terminated in or about April
14, 2020 without any cause.
The complaint claims that Defendant failed to:
-- provide 60 days advance notice of their termination;
-- provide a statement of the basis for reducing the
notification period to zero days advance notice; and
-- pay Plaintiff and the other Class members their respective
compensation and benefits for 60 days.
The Hertz Corporation, a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings Inc.,
is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida, that
operates 10,200 corporate and franchisee locations internationally.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel: 813-224-0431 (Main)
Tel: 813-229-8712 (Direct)
Fax: 813-229-8712
Emails: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
gnichols@wfclaw.com
- and –
Chad A. Justice, Esq.
JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
1205 N Franklin St., Suite 326
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel: 813-566-0550
Fax: 813-566-0770
Email: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com
ILLINOIS: Cabello v. Gov. Pritzker Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned John Cabello, in his individual capacity, and on
behalf of all citizens of Illinois similarly situated v. Governor
JB Pritzker, in his official capacity, Case No. 2020-CH-0000210,
was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Winnebago County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
May 12, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-50169 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional-State Statute.
Jay Robert "J.B." Pritzker is an American businessman,
philanthropist, and politician serving as the 43rd Governor of
Illinois.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
R. Douglas Rees, Esq.
Darren Bernens Kinkead, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
100 W. Randolph Street, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 814-3498
Email: drees@atg.state.il.us
dkinkead@atg.state.il.us
JOHNSON & WALES: Alexander Sues Over Failure to Refund Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Doris Alexander, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JOHNSON & WALES UNIVERSITY, Case No. 8:20-cv-01092
(M.D. Fla., May 11, 2020), seeks refund of the tuition and fees
paid by students for the Spring 2020 academic trimester at the
University, which closed its facilities due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition
and fees for the Spring 2020 academic trimester at JWU, and who,
because of the Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus
Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the benefit of the
education for which they paid, and/or the educational and related
services and facilities for which they paid, without having their
tuition and fees refunded to them.
JWU operates on academic Trimesters, rather than traditional
Semesters. The Spring 2020 Trimester began on March 9, 2020. On
March 12, 2020, the Defendant, through a news release, announced
that because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all non-culinary lab
academic classes would move to online and remove instruction
starting March 16 through April 12. On March 17, 2020, the
Defendant informed students that all academic classes would be held
remotely via online format through the end of the Spring 2020
Trimester.
JWU ultimately extended the closure of its culinary labs and equine
labs on at least its Providence, Miami, and Denver campuses through
the end of the Spring 2020 Trimester. JWU has not held any
in-person classes since March 13, 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 the Plaintiff and the putative
class contracted and paid for, according to the complaint. The
online learning options being offered to JWU 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.
The Plaintiff 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 provide, the Plaintiff
contends. Even if the Defendant claims it 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. Alexander is the parent of an undergraduate student at JWU's
Providence campus.
JWU is a private university with a total enrollment of
approximately 12,930 students.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
- and -
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
JP MORGAN: Proctor Alleges US Treasury Futures Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES HERBERT PROCTOR, III and SYNOVA ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.; J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP.;
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; J.P. MORGAN FUTURES, INC. now known as
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02666 (N.D. Ill., May 1, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act
and the common law.
The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful and intentional
manipulation of U.S. Treasury futures contracts and options on
those contracts that trade on United States-based exchanges,
including but not limited to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
including its subsidiary the Chicago Board of Trade, during the
period at least January 1, 2009 through present.
According to the complaint, the Defendants manipulated the prices
of Treasury Futures by employing a classic manipulative device
known as spoofing, whereby the Defendants placed orders for
Treasury Futures to send false and illegitimate supply and demand
signals to an otherwise efficient market and then canceled those
orders before execution. As a result, the Defendants caused
Treasury Futures prices to be artificial throughout the Class
period to financially benefit their trading positions at the
expense of other investors, like the Plaintiffs and the Class
members.
Synova Asset Management, LLC is an Arizona-based asset management
company.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is a multinational banking and financial
services corporation headquartered at 270 Park Avenue, New York,
New York.
J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp. is a provider of securities and futures
clearing, settlement, lending, and related services to traders,
hedge fund managers, brokerdealers, and investment advisors. It is
headquartered at 4 Chase Metrotech Center, Brooklyn, New York.
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is a subsidiary of financial services
company J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. with principal place of business
located at 277 Park Avenue, New York, New York.
J.P. Morgan Futures, Inc., now known as and merged into J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, was a Delaware corporation headquartered in New
York, New York until June 1, 2011, when it was acquired by J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
Brian P. O'Connell, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-4882
E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com
jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
ctourek@caffertyclobes.com
boconnell@caffertyclobes.com
- and –
David E. Kovel, Esq.
Karen M. Lerner, Esq.
Anthony E. Maneiro, Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 371-6600
E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
klerner@kmllp.com
amaneiro@kmllp.com
- and –
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
Johnathan P. Seredynski, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG PC
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
rgirnys@lowey.com
jseredynski@lowey.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Starjem Sues Over Refusal to Cover COVID Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starjem Restaurant Corp d/b/a/ Fresco, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, Case No.
1:20-cv-03672 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its breach of its contractual obligation under common
all-risk commercial property insurance policies to indemnify the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated for business losses and
extra expenses, and related losses resulting from actions taken by
civil authorities to stop the human to human and surface to human
spread of the COVID-19 outbreak.
Liberty Mutual issued to Fresco Policy No. BKS (20) 69 74 10 45 for
the period between December 31, 2019, and December 31, 2020.
Liberty Mutual's insurance policies issued to Plaintiff and the
Class Members are "all risk" commercial property polices which
cover loss or damage to the covered premises resulting from all
risks other than those expressly excluded. The Plaintiff's Policy,
as well as the policies of other Class Members, are standard forms
that are used by Liberty Mutual for all insureds having applicable
coverage.
The Defendant, and most insurance companies, who have issued
all-risk commercial property insurance policies with business
interruption coverage, are denying the obligation to pay for
business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by
policyholders for the physical loss and damage to the insured
property from measures put in place by the civil authorities to
stop the spread of COVID-19 among the population, according to the
complaint.
This action seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil
authorities to stop the spread of the outbreak triggers coverage,
has caused physical property loss and damage to the insured
property, provides coverage for future civil authority orders that
result in future suspensions or curtailments of business
operations, and finds that the Defendants are liable for the losses
suffered by policyholders.
The Plaintiff contends that it and all similarly situated Class
members have suffered a direct physical loss of and damage to their
property because they have been unable to use their property for
its intended purpose. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of
a proposed class of policyholders, who paid premiums in exchange
for business insurance policies that included lost business income
and extra expense coverage, says the complaint.
Fresco operates Fresco by Scotto restaurant and catering service in
New York.
Liberty Mutual is the fifth largest global property and casualty
insurer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 584-0700
Fax: 212/584-0799
Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
sweiss@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 367-7100
Fax: 631/367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561/750-3000
Fax: 561/750-3364
Email: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Fax: 973/994-1744
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Seeking Student Services Fee Refund
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Whistle, writing for Forbes, reports that the coronavirus
has hit college campuses and students in a unique way. Instruction
has moved online for the remainder of the semester for most. Many
students have been told to leave their campus dorm rooms. Some
colleges have even closed for the semester. This disruption has
left many students feeling a sense of disarray and now some are
even suing their schools for a refund.
The lawsuits differ in their claims, with some asking for much more
than others. Students at the University of Miami have filed a class
action lawsuit claiming they have paid for in-person courses at a
higher rate and, with online instruction, they aren't getting what
they paid for this semester. Students at Drexel University in
Pennsylvania have filed a similar suit asking for tuition refunds.
Other students are just asking for refunds for their housing costs,
since they are no longer living in their dorms. Students in Arizona
have sued asking for prorated refunds for their housing expenses
based on the time they will not be in campus housing. Colleges are
trying to adapt to the quickly changing landscape and many have
already adopted refund policies for housing, but many more are
still trying to figure out what to do.
While costs to go online will be a hit to colleges and universities
-- as will any refunds from housing expenses -- many institutions
will see some savings in reduced costs for student services and
activities, such as on-campus services, events, and travel. A
lawsuit in Virginia is making this case in federal court.
Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of Liberty University, made news in
March as he brought students back to campus amid the coronavirus
outbreak, breaking from the path chosen by most colleges. Now, a
student has filed suit against Liberty University for a refund for
fees for student services. The university offered a $1,000 credit
for the fall for students who didn't want to return to campus, but
many say that isn't enough.
The lawsuit claims that Falwell's university kept the campus open
as a ploy to avoid refunding students' room and board charges, as
well as other campus fees, even though the university is no longer
incurring the same costs as if it this were any other semester. The
attorneys assert the university is putting students' health and
finances at risk.
This is all happening while colleges have been waiting for money
Congress provided in the CARES Act, which provides grants to
colleges. Half of the money can be used at the discretion of the
schools, but it is unlikely many institutions will receive enough
to cover housing refunds—especially those that have had to spend
more to move courses online. The other half of the money goes to
students in grants, but institutions can't use those to refund
housing charges.
It is unclear how judges will rule in these cases, but across the
country institutions will likely have a hard time balancing their
budgets in such a tumultuous time. Associations representing
colleges and universities have already requested more money from
Congress, but Congress is still negotiating to allocate more funds
for small businesses. Depending on their financial circumstances
before, the impacts of the coronavirus could be devastating for
colleges throughout the United States. [GN]
LIVANOVA PLC: 2nd Payment Made in 3T Device Suit
------------------------------------------------
LivaNova PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that a second settlement payment has been
made in the class action suit related to the company's 3T device.
The amount of $90 million was paid in January 2020.
The Company is currently involved in litigation involving its 3T
device. The litigation includes a class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania, various U.S. state court cases
and cases in jurisdictions outside the U.S. The class action, filed
in February 2016, consists of all Pennsylvania residents who
underwent open heart surgery at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn
State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center between 2011 and 2015 and
who currently are asymptomatic for NTM infection.
Members of the class seek declaratory relief that the 3T devices
are defective and unsafe for intended uses, medical monitoring,
damages, and attorneys' fees.
On March 29, 2019, the company announced a settlement framework
that provides for a comprehensive resolution of the personal injury
cases pending in the multi-district litigation in U.S. federal
court, the related class action pending in federal court, as well
as certain cases in state courts across the United States.
The agreement, which makes no admission of liability, is subject to
certain conditions, including acceptance of the settlement by
individual claimants and provides for a total payment of up to $225
million to resolve the claims covered by the settlement.
Per the agreed-upon terms, the first payment of $135 million was
paid into a qualified settlement fund in July 2019 and the second
payment of $90 million was paid in January 2020.
Cases covered by the settlement are being dismissed as amounts are
disbursed to individual plaintiffs from the qualified settlement
fund.
LivaNova PLC, a medical device company, designs, develops,
manufactures, and sells therapeutic solutions worldwide. It
operates in two segments, Cardiovascular (CV) and Neuromodulation
(NM). The company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in
London, the United Kingdom.
LIVE! CASINO: Day Seeks OT Pay, Tip Credits for Employees
---------------------------------------------------------
LAURA A. DAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PPE CASINO RESORTS MARYLAND, LLC d/b/a LIVE!
CASINO & HOTEL, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01120-RDB (D. Md.,
April 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated employees who work or
worked for Defendant's casino located in Hanover, Maryland, the
mandated federal and state minimum wage rate for all hours worked
and overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek,
failed to properly inform its tipped employees of the required tip
credit provisions prior to paying them a sub-minimum direct cash
wage, and also made improper deductions from its employees'
paychecks for gaming license fees and other deductions which
reduced its employees' compensation below the required minimum
wage.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Table Games Dealer
at its casino property located at 7002 Arundel Mills Circle, Suite
7777, Hanover, Maryland from approximately April 2018 through
October 2018 and then approximately March 2019 through May 2019.
PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC, d/b/a Live! Casino & Hotel, is a
casino operator and provider of recreational services, with
principal place of business located in Hanover, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary T. Keating, Esq.
MARY T. KEATING LAW PC
728 Deepdene Road
Baltimore, MD 21210
Telephone: (410) 532-8900
Facsimile: (410) 532-8902
E-mail: marykeating@keating-law.com
- and –
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
- and –
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068-1170
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com
LUCAS ASSOCIATES: Miller Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Miller, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
LUCAS ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a LUCAS GROUP, Case No. 4:20-cv-01670
(S.D. Tex., May 12, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, but never
received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek, according to the complaint. Instead of paying
overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant pays the workers a
flat amount for each day worked (a "day rate") without overtime
compensation. The Defendant never paid the Plaintiff a guaranteed
salary, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Lucas Group as a Change Management
Consultant from June 2019 until October 2019.
Lucas Group bills itself as "the premier recruiting firm in North
America."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
M&T BANK: Kodra Sues in New York Over Employment Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ina Kodra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. M&T BANK CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-03682-LJL
(S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2020), is brought against the Defendant alleging
employment discrimination.
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of utilizing a facially
discriminatory policy and/or practice that categorically denies the
opportunity to enter employment contracts to lawfully present
noncitizens, who are authorized to work in the U.S., and whose
valid federal work authorization contains a future expiration
date.
M&T Bank Corporation denies employment opportunities to entire
categories of individuals authorized to work in the United States
based on their alienage, the Plaintiff alleges. Specifically, M&T
Bank categorically denies employment contracts to applicants for
the position of retail branch manager and other positions within
the Bank's Management Development Program if the applicants are
work-authorized lawfully present noncitizens whose valid federal
work authorization is subject to renewal after a future date of
expiration. This facially discriminatory company-wide policy and
practice constitute intentional discrimination based on alienage,
the Plaintiff points out.
The Plaintiff is not a citizen of the United States. The U.S.
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") granted the Plaintiff
deferred action and authorization to work in the U.S. through the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") initiative. The
Plaintiff had work authorization with a future date of expiration
when she applied for and was denied the retail branch manager
position at M&T Bank. She continues to have work authorization and
deferred action. The Plaintiff does not require a sponsor in order
to be authorized to work in the United States.
If the Plaintiff did not belong to a class of non-citizens whose
work authorization has a future expiration date, M&T would have
entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff for the
retail branch manager position with the Management Development
Program, according to the complaint. DACA recipients are not the
only class of noncitizens, who possess federal work authorization
but are ineligible to work for M&T because of its facially
discriminatory policy and/or practice that discriminates on the
basis of alienage, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a 24-year-old citizen of Greece, who presently
lives in Queens County, New York.
M&T Bank is an American multinational financial services company
with 240 branches throughout New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nina Perales, Esq.
THE MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
110 Broadway, Suite 300
San Antonio, TX 78205
Phone: 210-224-5476
Fax: 210-224-5382
Email: nperales@maldef.org
- and -
Thomas Saenz, Esq.
THE MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
634 Spring St., 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Phone: 213-629-2512
Fax: 213-629-0266
Email: tsaenz@maldef.org
- and -
Griselda Vega Samuel, Esq.
THE MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
11 E. Adams, Suite 700
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-427-0701
Fax: 312-427-0691
Email: gvegasamuel@maldef.org
MAJOR LEAGUE: Fans' Class Action Seeks Ticket Refund
----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a pair of fans in New York sued
Major League Baseball, Commissioner Rob Manfred and the 30 teams,
asking for their money back for tickets and for certification of
class-action status.
The lawsuit was filed on April 20 in U.S. District Court in Los
Angeles by Matthew Ajzenman, who said he bought a partial season
plan for more than 20 Mets games; and Susan Terry-Bazer, who said
she purchased six tickets for a May 9 game at Yankee Stadium
against Boston.
"Baseball fans are stuck with expensive and unusable tickets for
unplayable games in the midst of this economic crisis," the lawsuit
said. "Under the pretext of 'postponing' games, at the directive of
MLB, teams and ticket merchants are refusing to issue refunds for
games which are not going to be played as scheduled -- if ever."
Ajzenman said his Mets plan cost $1,730 and he made a first payment
to the team of about $317 last year. Terry-Bazer said she paid $926
to Ticketmaster and planned to take her grandson to the Red
Sox-Yankees game.
Ticketmaster, Stubhub, Live Nation and Last Minute Transactions are
among the defendants. The caption on the first page included Tampa
Bay Devil Rays Ltd. -- "Devil" was dropped from the team's nickname
after the 2007 season.
"The defendants continue to retain enormous profits from tickets
sold for the 2020 MLB season at the expense of fans' financial
hardship," the suit said.
Fans asked for "full restitution, an accounting of all MLB tickets
sold for the 2020 season (including season tickets, single game
purchases, and public seat licenses), a declaratory judgment that
defendants' conduct of continuing to sell tickets for the 2020 MLB
regular season violates California law, as well as a disgorgement
of profits from tickets sold during the 2020 MLB season."
They allege violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act
and Unfair Competition Law and of civil conspiracy.
Opening day on March 26 was pushed back until mid-May at the
earliest after a national emergency was declared due to the new
coronavirus pandemic.
MLB said it is awaiting government and medical direction, and it
does not know when the season can begin. The league and the
players' union have discussed the possibility of playing at neutral
sites or in empty ballparks, but no decisions have been made.
MLB, the Mets and Yankees did not immediately respond to requests
for comment. [GN]
MCKENZIE PAUL: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Zurakov Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RYAN ZURAKOV, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MCKENZIE PAUL AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00684 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class,
appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint
Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
MDL 2943: Consolidation of 11 Ski Pass Suits in Colorado Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled In re: NATIONAL SKI PASS CONSUMER LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2943, Plaintiffs Michael McAuliffe and George T. Farmer
move the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, to consolidate
and transfer the related actions against The Vail Resorts, Inc.,
and any tag-along actions, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado for coordinated and consolidated pretrial
purposes.
The Defendants include The Vail Corporation d/b/a Vail Resorts
Management Company, Alterra Mountain Company U.S. Inc., and Ikon
Pass Inc.
The actions are:
* Milan Steijn, et al. v. Alterra Mountain Company U.S. Inc.,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00755 (C.D. Cal.);
* Hunt v. The Vail Corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02463
(N.D. Cal.);
* Kramer v. Alterra Mountain Company, et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01057 (D. Colo.);
* Han v. Vail Resorts, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01121
(D. Colo.);
* Faydenko, et al. v. Vail Resorts, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01134 (D. Colo.);
* Eckert v. Alterra Mountain Company, et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01158 (D. Colo.);
* Clarke v. Vail Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01163
(D. Colo.);
* Farmer v. Alterra Mountain Company U.S. Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01175 (D. Colo.);
* McAuliffe v. Vail Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01176
(D. Colo.);
* Cleaver v. Ikon Pass Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01186
(D. Colo.); and
* Werner, et al. v. Alterra Mountain Company, et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01254 (D. Colo.).
Plaintiffs McAuliffe and Farmer are represented by:
Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
John D. Scheflow, Esq.
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com
nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
jscheflow@caffertyclobes.com
bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (888) 711-9975
E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
MED-DATA INCORPORATED: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Med-Data
Incorporated. The case is styled as Tyronda Williams, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Med-Data Incorporated, a Washington Corporation, Does 1-100, Case
No. 34-2020-00278445-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May
12, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment."
MedData, Inc., provides medical revenue cycle management services.
The Company offers medical billing, coding, collection,
reimbursement, and data management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
SHIMODA LAW CORP.
9401 E Stockton Blvd., #120
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Telephone: 916-318-6327
MIDLAND MORTGAGE: Garcia Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND MORTGAGE CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-02628 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged willful
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received numerous calls from
Defendant's numbers (800)654-4566 and (800)552-3000 to his cellular
phone (773)XXX-6519 beginning in approximately late 2019 or early
2020. Plaintiff affirms that he had never consented Defendant to
contact him as he had no business relationship with Defendant.
Due to curiosity as to why he was receiving calls from Defendant,
Plaintiff contacted Defendant sometime in approximately January
2020 to also asked Defendant to stop the phone calls. However,
Defendant continued contacting Plaintiff's cellular phone using
prerecorded messages and an automatic telephone dialing system.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm,
such as invasion of privacy, aggravation, and emotional distress,
because of Defendant's unlawful conduct.
Plaintiff seeks damages of at least $500.00 per phone call, treble
damages, reasonable attorney fees, costs, and enjoining Defendant
from further contacting him.
Midland Mortgage Co., is a division of MidFirst Bank which provides
home mortgages services to consumers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630)581-5858
Fax: (630)575-8188
Email: thatz@sulaimanlaw.com
- and –
Alejandro E. Figueroa, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630)575-8181 ext.120
Fax: (630)575-8188
Email: alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com
- and –
Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630)568-3056
Fax: (630)575-8188
Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
- and –
Eric D. Coleman, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (331)307-7648
Fax: (630)575-8188
Email: ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com
MOBILE MINI: Stillman Sues Over Misleading Securities Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN STILLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOBILE MINI, INC.; ERIK OLSSON; KELLY
WILLIAMS; FREDERICK G. MCNAMEE; JEFFREY S. GOBLE; JAMES J. MARTELL;
KIMBERLY J. MCWATERS; LAWRENCE TRACHTENBERG; MICHAEL L. WATTS; SARA
R. DIAL; STEPHEN A. MCCONNELL; and MICHAEL W. UPCHURCH, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03359 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated public holders of the common stock of Mobile
Mini, Inc., alleges that the Defendants released a misleading
registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 17, 2020 in order to convince Mobile Mini shareholders to
vote in favor of the proposed merger agreement with WillScot
Corporation. The registration statement contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial
projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and
relied on by Defendants in recommending that Mobile Mini
shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii)
the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Mobile
Mini's financial advisors, Barclays Capital Inc. and Goldman Sachs
& Co. LLC in support of their opinions that the Merger
Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied.
The Plaintiff asserts that the omitted material information should
be disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's
shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed
Transaction.
Mobile Mini, Inc. is an American portable storage company with
principal executive offices located at 4646 E. Van Buren Street,
Suite 400, Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com
MOVING SOLUTIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Garza Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT GARZA, et al. v.
MOVING SOLUTIONS, INC, et al., Case No. (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Lucy H. Koh entered an order:
1. certifying a settlement class defined as:
"all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees,
except for administrative office staff, who are employed
or have been employed by Defendants in the State of
California from July 17, 2013 through January 17, 2020.
The class does not include Chartwell Staffing Solutions,
Inc.'s employees who were not placed to work for Defendant
Moving Solutions, Inc. or Defendant Managed Facilities
Solutions, LLC."
2. granting final approval of the Settlement and finds the
terms of the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and
adequate under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, including the amount of the settlement fund;
the amount of distributions to class members; the
procedure for giving notice to class members; the
procedure for members of the Settlement Class to opt out
of the Settlement; the procedure for members of the
Settlement Class to object to the Settlement; and the
maximum amounts allocated to an incentive payment, costs
and attorney's fees;
3. barring all class members who did not timely file a
request for exclusion from the Settlement for prosecuting
against the Released Parties any and all Released Claims
as set forth in the Settlement;
4. directing the Defendants make payment to the settlement
administrator, in accordance with the procedures set forth
in the Settlement, of the amount needed to fund all
amounts payable under the Settlement;
5. directing payment from the settlement fund of settlement
administration fees to CPT Group, Inc. in the amount of
$16,000 in accordance with the Settlement;
6. awarding the Plaintiffs $117,500 in attorney's fees, to be
paid from the settlement fund in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Settlement;
7. awarding the Plaintiffs $6,098.55 in litigation costs, to
be paid from the settlement fund in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Settlement;
8. awarding the Plaintiffs Barbara Middle Rider, Albert
Arellano, Robert Garza, Daniel Coronado, and Jose Don
Coronado aka Dan Coronado each $5,000 class representative
enhancement payments, to be paid from the settlement fund
in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
Settlement; and
9. dismissing the instant case with prejudice.
Moving Solutions was founded in 2006. The company's line of
business includes providing various business services.[CC]
NASHVILLE TENNESSEE: FLSA Collective Action Authorized in McGill
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BETH MCGILL, TINA GIPSON,
KARI NUENKE, EMILY NUENKE, and REBEL MOORE, Individually, and on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and
former employees v. NASHVILLE TENNESSEE VENTURES, INC. a Tennessee
Corporation, a/k/a NASHVILLE VENTURES, d/b/a HELP 4 TIMESHARE
OWNERS, INTEGRITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, a New Mexico Limited
Liability Company, JOHN STEVEN HUFFMAN, and JOHN PRESTON THOMPSON,
Individually, Case No. 3:19-cv-00922 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order:
1. authorizing the case to proceed as a collective action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act's overtime compensation provisions;
2. directing the Defendants to immediately provide a list of
names, last known addresses, last known email addresses,
and last known telephone numbers for all putative class
members within the last three years;
3. providing that notice be prominently posted at Defendants'
office in Nashville, Tennessee where putative class
members work, be attached to current employees' next
scheduled pay checks, and be mailed and emailed to
putative class members so they can assert their claims on
a timely basis;
4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class
as of the date this motion is fully briefed;
5. authorizing a reminder postcard be issued mid-way through
the 90-day notice period; and
6. requiring that opt in plaintiffs' Consent to Join Forms be
deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.
Nashville Tennessee is a consumer advocacy group that is devoted to
helping timeshare owners break free from the financial burdens that
were imposed on them through lies and deception from their
timeshare salesmen.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
- and -
Nina Parsley, Esq.
PONCE LAW
400 Professional Park Drive
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Tipich Balks at Mortgage Payment Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON TIPICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, d/b/a MR. COOPER,
and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03940 (C.D.
Cal., April 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and for negligence.
The case arises from the improper collection attempts of Mr. Cooper
following the Plaintiff's successful completion of a Chapter 13
bankruptcy. The Plaintiff alleges that even though she had been
paying her mortgage loan payments to Mr. Cooper and was completely
current, immediately after receiving her bankruptcy discharge,
starting in July 2018, Mr. Cooper started sending her
communications that erroneously asserted that her mortgage loan
account was not current. Mr. Cooper sent Ms. Tipich an unsolicited
text message to her cellular phone using an automated telephone
dialing system but prior to the text message, she did not receive
any letters, notices or other form of communication from Mr. Cooper
informing her that there was an issue with her mortgage loan
account. As a result of the Defendants' improper collection
attempts, the Plaintiff paid an improperly inflated reinstatement
amount in January 2019 to stop a threatened foreclosure.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC, d/b/a Mr. Cooper, is a mortgage services
company with its principal place of business located at 8950
Cypress Waters Blvd., Coppell, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John R. Habashy, Esq.
Tiffany N. Buda, Esq.
LEXICON LAW, PC
633 W. 5th Street, 28th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 223-5900
Facsimile: (888) 373-2107
E-mail: john@lexiconlaw.com
tiffany@lexiconlaw.com
- and –
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
DANNLAW
Cleveland, OH 44103
Telephone: (513) 645-3488
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
bflick@dannlaw.com
- and –
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
NEW YORK: Underpays Fire Protection Inspectors, Chalmers Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL CHALMERS, DARREN CONNORS, GLENN MENDEZ, JAMES NOVA, and
FATIMA Q. ROSEMOND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, and AFSCME DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 LOCAL 2507, on
behalf of its members, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03389 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for disparate treatment claims under 42
U.S.C. and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated fire protection inspectors (FPIs) who work for
the Fire Department of New York (FDNY), allege that the Defendant
is engaged in pay discrimination as FPIs received lower salaries
than building inspectors (BIs). The pay gap has ranged from a low
of about $1,600 in 2010 to a high of about $9,000 in recent years.
Aside from the pay discrimination, FPIs also experience another
form of discrimination including issuing FPIs fewer and inferior
safety equipment and protective clothing than it gives to FDNY's
largely white firefighter force and racially mixed (about 50%
white) emergency medical service force, requiring FPIs to wear
patches on their clothes differentiating them from firefighters and
EMS employees, and prohibiting FPI supervisors from wearing the
same type of shirt that all other supervisors of uniformed services
wear. As a result of the Defendant's wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiffs and Class members experienced damages in the form of
lost pay, lost overtime, and diminished employee benefits tied to
pay levels.
Plaintiff Chalmers is an African American who has been employed by
the City as a fire protection inspector from November 4, 1991 until
FY 2009 and as an assistant fire protection inspector from FY 2009
until today.
Plaintiff representative Connors is a white male who has been
employed by the City as a fire protection inspector from November
3, 2005 through FY 2008 and as an associate fire protection
inspector from FY 2009 until today.
Plaintiff Mendez is a Hispanic male who has been employed by the
City as a fire protection inspector from June 6, 2011 through FY
2016 and as an associate fire protection inspector from FY 2017
until today.
Plaintiff Nova is a Hispanic male who has been employed by the City
as a fire protection inspector in FDNY since November 26, 2018.
Plaintiff Rosemond is an African American who has been employed by
the City as a fire protection inspector in FDNY since March 2019.
AFSCME Local 2507 is a local union affiliated with AFCSME District
Council 37. Local 2507 is comprised of Paramedics, Emergency
Medical Technicians, and FPIs employed by the City of New York in
FDNY.
The City of New York is a municipality organized under the laws of
the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rob J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
Sara Wyn Kane, Esq.
Matthew Berman, Esq.
VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7180
Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
E-mail: rvalli@vkvlawyers.com
skane@vkvlawyers.com
mberman@vkvlawyers.com
- and –
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
Michael D. Lieder, Esq.
Aisha Rich, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET PLLC
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com
mlieder@findjustice.com
arich@findjustice.com
ONE AMERICAN BANK: Faces Famularcano Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against One American Bank, et
al. The case is styled as Michelle Famularcano, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ONE AMERICAN BANK, d/b/a
ONE AMERICAN MORTGAGE, ETHOS LENDING, a South Dakota corporation,
DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC20584410 (Cal. Super.,
San Francisco Cty., May 11, 2020).
The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."
One American Bank operates a full-service bank. The Bank accepts
deposits, makes loans, and provides other services for the
public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
ONEIDA COUNTY, NY: Faces Williamson Prisoner Suit in N.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maciol, et al. The
case is styled as Nicole Williamson, Sarah Barrett, Shannon
Terrell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Robert Maciol, Oneida County Sheriff; Lisa Zurek, Chief Deputy
Oneida County Jail; Case No. 9:20-cv-00537-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y., May
12, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Robert Maciol is the Sheriff of Oneida County, who is also the
president of the New York State Sheriff's Association.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua T. Cotter, Esq.
Samuel C. Young, Esq.
LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YORK
221 South Warren Street, Suite 300
Syracuse, NY 13202
Phone: (315) 703-6579
Fax: (315) 475-2706
Email: jcotter@lscny.org
samyoung@lscny.org
PENNSYLVANIA: Private Properties Files Class Suit in Pa. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Usana Health Sciences
Inc. The case is styled as Private Properties, LLC, the
Pennsylvania Residential Owners Association, and Chester
Properties, LLC, on Behalf of all Similarly Situated Parties,
Petitioners v. Gov. Tom Wolf, Respondent, Case No. 90 MM 2020 (Pa.
Sup., May 12, 2020).
The case type is stated as "Other-Civil."
Thomas Westerman Wolf is an American politician and businessman who
has served as the 47th Governor of Pennsylvania since January 20,
2015.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
Gregory George Schwab, Esq.
PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
333 Market St., 17th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
Phone: (717) 787-9354
- and -
Lee A. Stivale, Esq.
STIVALE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
Suite 103, Mills of Victoria
1489 Baltimore Pike
Springfield, PA 19064
Phone: (610) 543-8800
- and -
Mary Elizabeth Fischman, Esq.
Bradley Scott Dornish, Esq.
DORNISH LAW OFFICES, PC
2500 Brooktree Rd., Ste. 301
Wexford, PA 15090
Phone: (412) 765-2726
The Respondent is represented by:
Joshua D. Shapiro, Esq.
PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Strawberry Sq., Fl. 14
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Phone: (717) 787-3391
PHH MORTGAGE: Mathews Suit Moved From Florida to N.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Dewayne Mathews, Debra Turner, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHH Mortgage
Corporation a New Jersey corporation and successor by merger to
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, a limited liability corporation
organized under the laws of the state of Florida, Case No.
9:19-cv-81492, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma on May 11, 2020.
The Northern District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00200-CVE-JFJ to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as "Consumer Credit."
PHH Mortgage Corporation provides mortgage financing solutions. The
Company offers real estate and private label solutions,
correspondent lending, loan subservicing, and relocation
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq.
Patrick A Barthle, II, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 275-5272
Fax: (813) 275-9295
- and -
Bradford D Barron, Esq.
BARRON LAW FIRM PLLC
PO BOX 369
Claremore, OK 74018
Phone: (918) 341-8402
Fax: (918) 515-4691
Email: bbarron@barronlawfirmok.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Phillip Russell Perdew, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
111 S Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606-4410
Phone: (312) 443-0700
Email: rperdew@lockelord.com
- and -
Dale A. Evans, Jr., Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
777 South Flagler Drive
East Tower, Suite 215
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 833-7700
Fax: (561) 655-8719
PLANET BEAUTY: Begg Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Planet Beauty, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Bruce
Begg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Planet Beauty, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-03173-NC (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2020).
Planet Beauty Inc. operates as a fashion retail boutique. The
Company offers skincare, makeup, haircare, tools, nails, men, bath
and body, as well as gift products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
The Law Offices of Jonathan A. Stieglitz
11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Tel: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Davis Suit Over Defective Car Vent Clips
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Davis, Deanna Lopez and Ursula Riley, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal., May 11, 2020), is
brought to prevent the Defendant from producing, marketing, and
selling more defective automotive air fresheners, the CAR Vent
Clips.
First introduced in test markets in March 1996, the fabric
refresher product has been sold in the United States since June
1998, and the line has since branched out to include the automotive
air fresheners (Febreze CAR) that are the subject of this complaint
(hereinafter, the "CAR Vent Clips"). The Defendant's CAR Vent Clips
are intended to be clipped onto the interior car vents of
automobiles. The Defendant represents that the scent of a CAR Vent
Clip is "activated" once attached--and lasts for up to 30 days.
Along with ease of installation and use, the Defendant represents
that the CAR Vent Clips "work in virtually every vehicle" and are
"safe to use."
Unfortunately for consumers, this is false and misleading, the
Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant's CAR
Vent Clips are not "long-lasting" and are far from "mess-free."
Contrary to the Defendant's representations, P&G, with its long
history of producing products under the Febreze brand, knew or
should have known that the CAR Vent Clips contain one or more
design and/or manufacturing defects which under normal use and
conditions, cause the CAR Vent Clips to leak oil and/or other
substances, thereby, damaging the interior surfaces and interior
components of the vehicles in which they are used, the Plaintiffs
aver.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has long been aware of
the Defect and actively concealed the Defect. Many consumers have
submitted complaints via various online forums, including through
P&G's own website, regarding the damages caused by the Defect.
Instead of recognizing the Defect, P&G has failed to reimburse
consumers for their damages and/or warn consumers of the Defect. As
a result of the Defect, the Plaintiffs purchasers and users of CAR
Vent Clips have sustained – and continue to sustain –
ascertainable loss of money, property and/or loss in value of their
automobiles. Had the Plaintiffs known of the Defect at the time of
their purchase, they would not have purchased the CAR Vent Clips.
The Plaintiffs purchased CAR Vent Clips.
P&G designs, manufactures, distributes, sells, and/or otherwise
places into the stream of commerce in the United States, a series
of products designed to eliminate or mask odors under the "Febreze"
brand name.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
Christopher E. Stiner, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Fax (310) 474-8585
Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Underpays Internal Wholesalers, Barron Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN BARRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-05359 (D.N.J., April 30, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Internal
Wholesaler-In-Training from approximately February 2019 to March
2019 in Minnesota and as an Internal Wholesaler from approximately
March 2019 to November 2019 still in Minnesota.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40
hours in a workweek, but Defendant has not compensated him for
overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours each week. Allegedly,
Defendant required IWs and IWs-In-Training to regularly work
overtime without paying them overtime during and after their
one-month training program to minimize labor costs.
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, an
additional and equal amount as liquidated damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, equitable and injunctive relief to remedy
violations, a reasonable incentive award for his time and effort,
and attorneys' fees, expert fees and costs.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America is a financial wellness
leader and global investment manager. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
800 3rd Ave., Suite 2800
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (800)616-4000
Fax: (561)447-8831
Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and –
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Tamra Givens, 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
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
RCSH OPERATIONS: Dix Seeks to Certify 2 FLSA & 2 FMWA Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT DIX, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00098-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order granting conditional certification of two
classes under the Fair Labor Standards Act and two classes under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.
The two FLSA Classes are:
"all Restaurant Servers who worked for Defendant throughout
the United States during the three years preceding this
lawsuit who were required to purchase a uniform and tools
prior to beginning their first week of employment with
Defendant and not reimbursed these costs"; and
"all Restaurant Servers who worked for Defendant throughout
the United States during the three years preceding this
lawsuit who were required to spend more than 20% of their
shifts performing “non-tipped” incidental duties and did
not
receive the full applicable federal minimum wage for this
work"; and
The two FMWA Classes are:
"all Restaurant Servers who worked for Defendant within
Florida during the five years preceding this lawsuit, and who
were required to purchase a uniform prior to beginning their
first week of employment with Defendant and not reimbursed
these costs"; and
"all Restaurant Servers who worked for the Defendant within
Florida during the five years preceding this lawsuit, and who
were not paid the full applicable minimum wage when more than
20% of their shift was spent performing non-tipped duties and
responsibilities."
The Plaintiff filed this class/collective action lawsuit seeking to
recover unpaid wages from the Defendant based on violations of the
FLSA and FMWA for failure to pay proper minimum wages to himself
and other servers.
The Defendant operates a nationwide chain of steakhouses. The
Defendant employs thousands of servers who perform essential tasks
that are instrumental to the success of the company.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Jake Blumstein, Esq.
Melissa Scott, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joyce Ackerbaum Cox, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
SunTrust Center, Suite 2300
200 South Orange Ave.
P.O. Box 112
Orlando, FL 32802-0112
Telephone: (407) 649-4000
E-mail: jacox@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Amanda Godzinski, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 228-1541
E-mail: agodzinski@bakerlaw.com
RESET.COM LLC: Begg Alleges Violation under ADA in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Reset.Com, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Bruce
Begg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Reset.Com, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03179
(N.D. Cal., May 8, 2020).
The Reset.Com, LLC is categorized under Women's Clothing
Stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
The Law Offices of Jonathan A. Stieglitz
11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Tel: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
ROSETTE: Gingras Suit Transferred From D. Vermont to N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jessica Gingras, Angela C. Given, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Joel Rosette,
official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Plain Green; Ted
Whitford, official capacity as a member of Plain Green's Board of
Directors; Tim McInerney, official capacity as a member of Plain
Green's Board of Directors; Think Finance Inc.; TC Loan Service
LLC; Kenneth E. Rees, former President and Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board of Think Finance; TC Decision Sciences
LLC; Sequoia Capital Operations LLC; Technology Crossover Ventures;
Sequoia Capital Franchise Partners LP; Sequoia Capital IC LP;
Sequoia Capital Entrepreneurs Annex Fund LP; Sequoia Capital Growth
Fund III LP; Sequoia Capital Growth Fund III Principals Fund LLC;
Sequioa Capital Franchise Fund LP; Sequoia Capital Growth Partners
III LP; Sequoia Capital IX LP; SCFF Management LLC; SC IX.I
Management LLC; SCGF III Management LLC; TCV V LP TCV Member Fund
LP; Technology Crossover Management V LLC, Defendants; State of
Vermont, Amicus; ENE Evaluator, Mediator; Case No. 5:15-cv-00101,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Vermont to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas on May 12, 2020.
The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01200-B to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Consumer Credit for
the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Joel owns and manages Joel Rosette Law, PLLC, a tribal law practice
representing tribal firms and entities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew B. Byrne, Esq.
GRAVEL & SHEA PC
76 St. Paul Street, 7th Floor
P.O. Box 369
Burlington, VT 05402-0369
Phone: (802) 658-0220
Email: mbyrne@gravelshea.com
- and -
Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 433-3200
Email: cheffelfinger@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq.
BERMAN DeVALERIO PEASE TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO
One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 542-8300
- and -
Steven J. Buttacavoli, Esq.
Steven L. Groopman, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 542-8300
Fax: (617) 542-9411
Email: sbuttacavoli@bermantabacco.com
sgroopman@bermantabacco.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andre D. Bouffard, Esq.
Jennifer E. McDonald, Esq.
DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC
199 Main Street
P.O. Box 190
Burlington, VT 05402-0190
Phone: (802) 863-2375
Fax: (802) 862-7512
Email: abouffard@drm.com
jmcdonald@drm.com
- and -
Alexander B. Bowerman, Esq
David Newmann, Esq.
Virginia A. Gibson, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1735 Market Street, 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (267) 675-4600
Fax: (267) 675-4601
Email: alexander.bowerman@hoganlovells.com
david.newmann@hoganlovells.com
virginia.gibson@hoganlovells.com
- and -
Jay A Dubow, Esq.
18th and Arch Streets
3000 Two Logan Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
Phone: (215) 981-4713
Email: dubowj@peppelaw.com
- and -
Matthew B. Homberger, Esq.
Richard J. Zack, Esq.
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
3000 Two Logan Square
18th & Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
Phone: (215) 981-4921
Fax: (215) 981-4790
Email: hombergm@pepperlaw.com
zackr@pepperlaw.com
- and -
Ritchie E. Berger, Esq.
DINSE, KNAP & McANDRE, P.C.
209 Battery Street
P.O. Box 988
Burlington, VT 05402-0988
Phone: (802) 864-5751
Fax: (802) 862-6409
Email: rberger@dinse.com
- and -
James R. McGuire, Esq.
Lauren Wroblewski, Esq.
MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street, 32nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Phone: (415) 268-7013
Fax: (415) 276-7589
Email: jmcguire@mofo.com
lwroblewski@mofo.com
- and -
Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND US LPP
The Grace Building, 40th Floor
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-7703
Phone: (212) 389-5000
Fax: (212) 389-5099
Email: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com
- and -
Lewis Steven Wiener, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND US LPP
700 Sixth Street NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001-3980
Phone: (202) 383-0100
Fax: (202) 637-3593
Email: lewiswiener@eversheds-sutherland.com
- and -
Stephen D. Ellis, Esq.
PAUL FRANK COLLINS PC
1 Church Street
P.O. Box 1307
Burlington, VT 05402-1307
Phone: (802) 658-2311
Fax: (802) 885-2131
Email: sdellis.ecf@pfclaw.com
- and -
David F. Herman, Esq.
Jonathan P. Boughrum, Esq.
Richard L. Scheff, Esq.
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
East Tower, 12th Floor
1500 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 780-2014
Fax: (215) 405-9070
Email: dherman@armstrongteasdale.com
jboughrum@armstrongteasdale.com
rlscheff@armstrongteasdale.com
- and -
Richard C. Carroll, Esq.
PHILLIPS, DUNN, SCHRIVER & CAROLL, P.C.
147 Western Avenue
Brattleboro, VT 05301
hone: (802) 257-7244
Fax: (802) 257-7256
Email: rcarroll@pdsclaw.com
- and -
Daniel M. Glosband, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: (617) 570-1930
Fax: (617) 523-1231
Email: dglosband@goodwinprocter.com
- and -
Sabrina M. Rose-Smith, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
901 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 346-4185
Fax: (202) 346-4444
Email: srosesmith@goodwinprocter.com
- and -
Shon Morgan, Esq.
QUINN EMANUAL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES LLP
865 S Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
Phone: (213) 443-3000
Fax: (213) 443-3100
- and -
Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 626-3939
Fax: (415) 875-5700
Email: sdhibbard@JonesDay.com
- and -
Thomas M. Hefferon, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 346-4000
Email: thefferon@goodwinprocter.com
- and -
Grace J. Lee, Esq.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (212) 848-4489
Fax: (646) 848-1002
Email: grace.lee@shearman.com
The Amicus is represented by:
Justin E. Kolber, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE VERMONT ATTORNEY GENERAL
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609-1001
Phone: (802) 828-3172
Email: justin.kolber@vermont.gov
The Mediator is represented by:
Michael J. Marks, Esq.
MARKSPOWERS LLP
1205 Three Mile Bridge Road
Middlebury, VT 05753
Phone: (802) 388-2211
Fax: (802) 388-1113
Email: Michael@markspowers.com
RYB EDUCATION: Qian Class Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
RYB Education, Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the putative class action
suit entitled, Qianv. RYB Education, Inc. et al., Case No.
17CIV05494, has been stayed on forum non conveniens grounds.
The company, certain of its directors and officers, and certain
underwriters for its initial public offering were also named as
defendants in a putative class action filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Mateo: Qian v.
RYB Education, Inc. et al., Case No. 17CIV05494.
The complaint alleges that the company's registration statements
contained misstatements or omissions regarding our business,
operations and prospects in violation of the U.S. securities laws.
The complaint states that the plaintiffs seek to represent a class
of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
purchase or other acquisition of the company's securities in
connection with its initial public offering on or about September
27, 2017, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.
On September 5, 2018, the case was stayed on forum non conveniens
grounds.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
RYB Education, Inc. provides early childhood education service in
the People's Republic of China. The company offers kindergarten
services to 2-6-year-old children; and play-and-learn centers
services for the joint participation of 0-6-year-old children and
their adult family members to promote children's development,
foster bonding with family, and prepare them for their entry into
kindergartens and primary schools. The company was formerly known
as Top Margin Limited and changed its name to RYB Education, Inc.
in June 2017. RYB Education, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based
in Beijing, China.
RYB EDUCATION: Says Zhang Class Suit in Preliminary Stages
----------------------------------------------------------
RYB Education, Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Zhang v. RYB Education, Inc.
et al.
The company and certain of its directors and officers were also
named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York for the County of Queens: Zhang v.
RYB Education, Inc. et al., Index No. 717923/2018.
The complaint alleges that the company's registration statements
contained misstatements or omissions regarding its business,
operations and prospects in violation of the U.S. securities laws.
The complaint states that the plaintiffs seek to represent a class
of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
purchase or other acquisition of the company's securities in
connection with its initial public offering on or about September
27, 2017, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.
RYB Education said, "This case remains in its preliminary stage, we
express no opinion on the likelihood of any unfavorable outcome or
any estimate of the amount or range of any potential loss."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
RYB Education, Inc. provides early childhood education service in
the People's Republic of China. The company offers kindergarten
services to 2-6-year-old children; and play-and-learn centers
services for the joint participation of 0-6-year-old children and
their adult family members to promote children's development,
foster bonding with family, and prepare them for their entry into
kindergartens and primary schools. The company was formerly known
as Top Margin Limited and changed its name to RYB Education, Inc.
in June 2017. RYB Education, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is based
in Beijing, China.
SELENE FINANCE: McNeil Files Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selene Finance LP.
The case is styled as Robin McNeil, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Selene Finance LP, a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-21955-MGC (S.D.
Fla., May 8, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract:
Other.
Selene Finance LP offers solutions, support and information on
mortgage account management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barbara Cabrera Lewis, Esq.
The Moskowitz Law Firm
2 Alhambra Plaza
#601
Miami, FL 33134
Tel: (305) 740-1423
Fax: (786) 298-5737
Email: barbara@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
Howard Mitchell Bushman, Esq.
The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Tel: (305) 740-1423
Email: howard@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Miami, FL 33134
Tel: (305) 740-1423
Email: joseph@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036
Tel: (305) 740-1423
Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
SERVICEMASTER CO: Cooley Files Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Servicemaster
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Tyron Cooley, On behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Terminix International,
Inc., The Servicemaster Company, LLC, The Terminix International
Company Limited Partnership and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
34-2020-00278350-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., May 8, 2020).
The case type of the lawsuit is stated as Other employment.
The ServiceMaster Company, LLC provides building maintenance
services. The Company offers termite and pest control, home
warranties, disaster response and reconstruction, cleaning,
restoration, furniture repair, and home inspection services.
ServiceMaster Company serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robin G Workman, Esq.
Workman Law Firm, PC
177 Post Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 782-3660
Fax: (415) 788-1028
Email: info@workmanlawpc.com
SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: June 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP reminds investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against ServiceMaster
Global Holdings, Inc. ("ServiceMaster" or the Company") (NYSE:
SERV) on behalf of all purchasers of common stock during the period
between February 26, 2019 and November 4, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than June 9, 2020. If you want to discuss this action or
have any questions concerning this notice, please contact lead
analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you
email, please include your phone number.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose: (1) that
ServiceMaster had failed to inspect and treat for Formosan activity
properly; (2) as a result thereof, the Company was and continued to
experience a material adverse trend of costly litigation from
injured customers which was not disclosed to investors; (3) that in
an unsuccessful attempt to mitigate this trend, Defendants had been
taking remedial measures since at least 2018, including drastically
raising prices for termite treatments in Mobile, Alabama to deter
contract renewals; and (4) as a result of the preceding,
ServiceMaster's financial results were reasonably likely to be
impacted and would continue to impact the Company into 2020.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of ServiceMaster common stock during the Class Period.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP
Johnson Fistel, LLP -- http://www.johnsonfistel.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits. [GN]
SONGWHALE LLC: Faces Uribe TCPA Class Suit Over Unsolicited Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Uribe, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. SONGWHALE LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company;
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-04301 (C.D. Cal., May
12, 2020), seeks damages resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendants in contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading her and putative class members' right to privacy.
Beginning in May 2020, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff on
her cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit people to join the
U.S. Army Reserve. Despite her attempt(s) to opt out of these
messages, the Defendants proceeded to continue sending similar
messages to her, the Plaintiff contends. She asserts that the
Defendants used an "automated telephone dialing system," to send
text messages to her. She adds that the Defendants never received
the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive marketing
messages using an automated dialing system on her cellular
telephone pursuant to the TCPA.
The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in California.
Songwhale is a Minnesota Limited Liability Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
KRISTENSEN, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: 310-507-7906
Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
jacob@kristensenlaw.com
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Amer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MOHAMMAD AMER, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SOUTHWEST CREDIT
SYSTEMS, LP, Case No. 2:20-cv-00685 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to
prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
SUNSHINE MAKERS: Mislabels Simple Green Products, Moran Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Moran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUNSHINE MAKERS, INC., a California corporation, Case
No. 4:20-cv-03242 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief to stop the Defendant's unlawful labeling and marketing of
Simple Green cleaning products.
Simple Green's Non-Toxic formula is toxic to humans, animals, and
the environment, according to the complaint. Contrary to their
labeling, the purported "non-toxic" and "non-toxic formula"
cleaning Products contain numerous ingredients that are harmful to
humans, animals, and/or the environment. The Defendant exposes
consumers to harmful ingredients hidden in its Simple Green
products by fraudulently advertising them as non-toxic.
The purported "Non-Toxic" products at issue are Simple Green
All-Purpose Cleaner, Simple Green Oxy Solve Total Outdoor Cleaner,
Simple Green Oxy Solve House and Siding Cleaner, Simple Green Oxy
Solve Concrete and Driveway Cleaner, Simple Green Oxy Solve Deck
and Fence Cleaner, Simple Green Wash & Wax, Simple Green Golf Grip
Cleaner, Simple Green All-Purpose Wipes, Simple Green Multi-Purpose
Foaming Cleaner, Simple Green Ready-to-Use All-Purpose Cleaner,
Simple Green Carpet Cleaner, Simple Green Marine All-Purpose Boat
Cleaner, Simple Green Heavy Duty BBQ & Grill Cleaner, Simple Green
Heavy Duty BBQ & Grill Cleaner (Aerosol) , Simple Green Oxy Dog
Stain & Odor Oxidizer, Simple Green Bio Dog, Simple Green Advanced
Dog Bio Boost Stain & Odor Remover, Simple Green Cat Pet Stain &
Odor Remover, and Simple Green Outdoor Odor Eliminator
(collectively, the "Products").
The Plaintiff contends that the Products are, in fact, toxic,
because they contain ingredients that have been linked to blurred
vision, asphyxiation, dizziness, nausea, blistering of the skin,
muscular twitching, headaches, and irregular heartbeat.
Additionally, some of the toxic ingredients are potential human
carcinogens. Through its unlawful conduct, the Defendant obtains an
unfair competitive advantage in the household cleaning market and
unfairly profits from consumers' desire for products that are not
harmful to humans, animals, and the environment, the Plaintiff
adds.
According to the complaint, through falsely, misleadingly, and
deceptively labeling the Products, the Defendant sought to take
advantage of consumers' desire for non-toxic cleaning products that
are safe for humans, animals, and the environment, while reaping
the financial benefits of its deceptive labeling, advertising, and
marketing scheme. The Defendant has done so at the expense of
unwitting consumers, as well as Defendant's lawfully acting
competitors, over whom Defendant maintains an unfair competitive
advantage. The Defendant has reaped many millions of dollars
through this fraudulent scheme based on a calculated business
decision to put profits over people.
The Plaintiff purchased the Simple Green All-Purpose Cleaner at a
grocery store in Pleasanton, California.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels, and sells
the Products throughout California and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
Celine Cohan, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
Los Angeles, CA 90069
Phone: (213) 788-4050
Fax: (213) 788-4070
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com
ccohan@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
MOON LAW APC
600 West Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 915-9432
Fax: (650) 618-0478
Email: chris@moonlawapc.com
kevin@moonlawapc.com
SWOOP INC: Zawacki Sues Over Failure to Provide Full Refunds
------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Zawacki, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SWOOP, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01100-TPB-JSS (M.D. Fla.,
May 12, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to provide full
refunds to customers, whose flights were cancelled as a result of
the coronavirus, or COVID-19 pandemic.
Given the outbreak of the coronavirus, the Defendant has cancelled
all of its international flights. Swoop announced that "beginning
Sunday, March 22, 2020, at 11:59 p.m., we will suspend all our
international and transborder flights. This suspension follows
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's announcement imposing travel
restrictions for all flights entering Canada to reduce the spread
of COVID-19. The suspension will be in place until July 31, 2020."
However, the Defendant has, to date, refused to issue refunds for
flights that the Defendant cancelled, the Plaintiff says.
Swoop suspended all flights outside Canada on March 22, 2020. The
Plaintiff, like many other travelers, was scheduled to fly with
Swoop. The Plaintiff's departing flight was cancelled by Swoop due
to the coronavirus. Upon discovering her departing flight was
cancelled, the Plaintiff attempted to request a refund from Swoop.
The Plaintiff says she never received a full refund from Swoop. The
Plaintiff was only offered an opportunity to rebook her flight or a
24-month credit. The Defendant was required by the DOT Enforcement
Notice to provide the Plaintiff a prompt refund when Swoop
cancelled her flight, says the complaint.
Ms. Zawacki purchased tickets for herself and her husband for
flights on Swoop scheduled to depart on June 13, 2020, and a
returning on June 20, 2020.
Swoop is an "ultra-low fare" airline with headquarters in
Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
- and -
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: aobergfell@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
TARGET CORP: Mislabels Acetaminophen Products, Chong Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Chong and Christina Kooistra, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. TARGET CORPORATION; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-584415 (Cal. Super.,
San Francisco Cty., May 11, 2020), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of California's False and Misleading Advertising
Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
regarding their liquid acetaminophen pain reliever and fever
reducer products.
The Defendant markets, in stores and online, and sells its own
brand of liquid acetaminophen pain reliever and fever reducer,
including Infants' acetaminophen and Children's acetaminophen.
Taking too much acetaminophen, the active ingredient in the
Defendant's Infants' and Children's pain relievers and fever
reducers, can be dangerous and even fatal, the Plaintiffs contend.
This is an issue that concerns parents and other caregivers and
causes them to be extra careful when purchasing medicine for
infants and young children, the Plaintiffs note.
The Defendants exploits this fears and caution by misleading
consumers into believing that the more expensive Infants' product
has unique qualities that are beneficial or safer for children ages
two to three or younger, according to the complaint. In reality,
even though the Defendant markets and sells Infants' acetaminophen
at a price per ounce that is far higher than that of Children's
acetaminophen, the medicine contained in a bottle of Infants'
acetaminophen contains the exact same active ingredient in the
exact same active-ingredient dosage amount as the medicine
contained in a bottle of Children's acetaminophen.
Despite the Defendant's representations, Infants' acetaminophen has
no special qualities, the Plaintiffs aver. But Infants'
acetaminophen costs two and a half times as much per ounce and
sometimes more, the Plaintiffs contend. The representation on the
label that the product is for infants take advantage of parents'
and caregivers' legitimate caution and concern and mislead them
into paying a multiple of the price for an identical product, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendant's Infants' liquid
acetaminophen products.
The Defendant markets Infants' acetaminophen and Children's
acetaminophen.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric A. Grover, Esq.
Rachel G. Jung, Esq.
KELLER GROVER LLP
1965 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: (415) 543-1305
Facsimile: (415) 543- 7861
Email: eagrover@kellergrovcr.com
rjung@kellergrover.com
- and -
Scot Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Phone: (916) 447-0100
Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
Email: swampadero@sbemsteinlaw.com
TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO: Newton Files Suit in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Travelers
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Richard A. Newton, Sr.,
individually and on behalf of a Class of Individuals Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. The Travelers Insurance Company and
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02001-CAP (N.D. Ga., May 8, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
pursuant to the Diversity-Insurance Contract.
The Travelers Companies, Inc., commonly known as Travelers, is an
American insurance company. It is the second-largest writer of U.S.
commercial property casualty insurance, and the sixth-largest
writer of U.S. personal insurance through independent agents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Cameron Tribble, Esq.
The Barnes Law Group, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Tel: (770) 227-6375
Email: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
The Barnes Law Group, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Tel: (770) 227-6375
Fax: (770) 590-8958
Email: Roy@barneslawgroup.com
UNITED COLLECTION: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Tokar"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KIMBERLY TOKAR, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNITED COLLECTION
BUREAU, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00685 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to
prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
UNITED STATES: Campbell Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Callan Campbell, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Callan Campbell, et al., Petitioners v. United States, Case
No. 19-1252.
Response is due on May 28, 2020.
Petitioners Campbell, et al., petition for a writ of certiorari to
review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit in the case titled CALLAN CAMPBELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 15-717C.
The forthcoming petition for certiorari to be filed on behalf of
the Petitioners presents an important federal constitutional
question: specifically, does a regulatory takings claim accrue for
purposes of the six-year statute of limitations under the Tucker
Act upon the occurrence of a final regulatory decision even if the
effect of that regulatory action had not yet been felt by the
plaintiff?
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Patricia
Campbell-Smith of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied the
Plaintiffs' combined motion for reconsideration, motion to amend
the judgment, and motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint.
The Plaintiffs now rely on a proposed Second Amended Class Action
Complaint to clarify their claims and to add additional factual
allegations which, in their view, justify reconsideration of the
dismissal of their claims by the Court.
Judge Campbell-Smith observes that not only does the proposed
Second Amended Complaint supply additional allegations of fact, it
also reshapes the description of the Plaintiffs' takings claims and
the facts already alleged. The overall issue presented in the three
complaints proffered by the Plaintiffs in the suit is whether the
government's specific conditions placed on its financial bail-out
of General Motors Corp. constituted a taking of these Plaintiffs'
personal injury claims. The Plaintiffs' personal injury suits filed
against Old GM were greatly affected by the General Motors
bankruptcy in 2009. Further, in the GM bankruptcy proceedings, the
Plaintiffs' opportunity to bring successor liability suits against
New GM were extinguished.
The case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
because the original complaint was not filed within six years of
claim accrual. The Court found that the "coercive" government
action that was alleged to have caused the taking of the
Plaintiffs' successor liability claims could not have extended past
the date when the bankruptcy court issued its Sale Order on July 5,
2009. Because the Plaintiffs' suit was filed on July 9, 2015, more
than six years later, it was untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. Section
2501 (2012).
Judge Campbell-Smith has carefully considered the new allegations
of fact in the proposed Second Amended Complaint, as well as the
Plaintiffs' arguments based on those factual allegations and
takings jurisprudence, and finds no reason to conclude that their
takings claims accrued on July 9 or July 10, 2009, rather than on
July 5, 2009. Once the bankruptcy court entered the Sale Order on
July 5, 2009, any alleged government coercion of third parties, as
"coercion" is defined in this context by A & D Auto, 748 F.3d at
1153-56, ceased.
The Judge has reviewed all of the Plaintiffs' arguments challenging
the Court's dismissal of their takings claims on timeliness
grounds. The alternative accrual dates set forth in the proposed
Second Amended Complaint and the Plaintiffs' briefs are not
well-founded. Nor have they shown any legal error in the
analytical framework employed by the Court in Campbell v. United
State. Because the Court's claim accrual ruling in Campbell does
not evince legal error, any mistake of fact, or a manifest
injustice, the Plaintiffs' motion for the reconsideration of the
Court's RCFC 12(b)(1) dismissal of their claims must be
denied.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners Callan Campbell, et al., are represented
by:
Robert H. Thomas, Esq.
DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT
1003 Bishop Street 1600 Pauahi Tower
Honolulu, HI 96813-0000
Telephone: (808) 531-8031
Facsimile: (808) 533-2242
Email: rht@hawaiilawyer.com
Defendant-Respondent United States is represented by:
Noel J. Francisco, Esq.
SOLICITOR GENERAL
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Email: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
UNIVERSAL PROMOTE: Dillon Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Dillon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSAL PROMOTE, INC., a Delaware registered
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-04243 (C.D. Cal., May 11, 2020), is
brought to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending unsolicited, autodialed text messages to
consumers, and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief
for all persons injured by the Defendant's conduct.
Universal Promote, doing business as Zentap, markets its services
to real estate agents through autodialed phone calls and text
messages. These calls and text messages are being sent without the
necessary prior express written consent when sent using an
autodialer, the Plaintiff asserts.
On October 31, 2018, the Plaintiff received an unsolicited,
autodialed text message on his cell phone from the Defendant. The
unsolicited text message advertises Zentap's video commercial
services. The Plaintiff has never had a relationship with Zentap
and has never provided Zentap express written consent to call or
text his cell phone number, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Wilmington, North Carolina resident.
Universal Promote, Inc., operates using the d/b/a Zentap. Zentap
provides lead generation services to real estate agents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Lee Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matias Lee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Case No.
3:20-cv-03241 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2020), seeks refund of the
tuition and fees paid by students for the Spring 2020 academic term
and thereafter.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of UC students, who paid tuition,
fees and other costs for in-person education for the Spring 2020
academic term and thereafter, and who did not receive the promised
and bargained-for educational and other services and have not been
refunded a prorated portion of their tuition and fees after UC
ceased providing such services in March 2020 due to Coronavirus
Disease 2019 ("COVID-19").
Specifically, the Plaintiff avers, as a result of the Defendant's
wrongful acts and unfair business practices, the Plaintiff and the
proposed Class (i) have not received any refund or reimbursement
for the unused services for which they paid fees and/or (ii) did
not receive any refund or reimbursement for the decreased value of
the education they received from UC when their classes transitioned
from in person instruction at the University's campus facilities to
a remote, online learning format.
In response to COVID-19, on March 9, 2020, UC cancelled all
in-person classes and closed campuses, including at UC San Diego,
according to the complaint. The Plaintiff's experience is typical
of other Class members. UC has not provided any in-person classes
or full use of its campus and other facilities since March 9, 2020.
Instead, UC has offered less valuable online classes instead of the
bargained-for in-person instruction and on-campus experience.
Consequently, the Defendant has not provided the education,
services, facilities, technology, access or opportunities for which
the Plaintiff and the Class paid. Moreover, the Defendant has
failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the Class for the diminished
value and damages they have suffered as a result of the Defendant's
actions, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an undergraduate student studying mechanical
engineering at UC San Diego.
UC is a public university system consisting of ten campuses in
California: UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UCLA, UC Merced, UC
Riverside, UC San Diego, UC San Francisco, UC Santa Barbara, and UC
Santa Cruz.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C.
12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: (619) 489-0300
Email: bgaldston@bm.net
USANA HEALTH: Lacasse Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Usana Health Sciences
Inc. The case is styled as Megan Lacasse, on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Usana Health
Sciences Inc., a Utah corporation, Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2020-00278413-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 12,
2020).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment."
Usana Health Sciences, Inc., or USANA, is a Utah-based multi-level
marketing company that produces various nutritional products,
dietary supplements and skincare products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
VANDER SCHAAF: Gomez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Gomez, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. VANDER SCHAAF DAIRY, a California Partnership;
VANDERSCHAAF DAIRY, a California Partnership; VANDER SCHAAF MURPHY
ROAD, L.P., a California Limited Partnership; JOHN VANDER SCHAAF,
an individual; EARL JOHN VANDER SCHAAF, an individual; HENRIETA
VANDER SCHAAF, an individual; ROBERT TORRES, an individual; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-3954 (Cal.
Super., San Joaquin Cty., May 11, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and minimum wages, unpaid meal and rest periods premiums,
unpaid reimbursement expenses, and derivative penalties for
inaccurate wages statements.
The Defendants had a uniform practice of failing to pay the
Plaintiff the correct rate for overtime wages earned, and minimum
wages for overtime hours work, according to the complaint. The
Defendants did not provide all meal and rest periods to the
Plaintiff and further failed to pay all applicable meal and rest
period premiums to the Plaintiff for these missed meal and rest
periods. Further, the Defendants failed to pay reimbursements
expenses to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants' Dairy farm as a feeder for
livestock.
The Defendants operate dairy farms.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq.
Brittany V. Berzin, Esq.
Renald Konini, Esq.
SHIMODA LAW CORP.
8401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Phone: (916) 525-0716
Fax: (916) 760-3733
W.S. BADGER CO: West Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
W.S. Badger Company, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Mary West, other ,on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. W.S. Badger Company, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03601 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2020).
W.S. Badger Company, Inc. manufactures and supplies organic and
natural skin care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Raimo Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Raimo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS, Case No.
4:20-cv-00634 (E.D. Mo., May 12, 2020), seeks to recover
compensatory damages, trebling where permitted, and attorney's fees
and costs on behalf of the Plaintiff and others, who did not
receive the full value of the services for which they paid and did
not receive the benefits of in-person instruction, and have lost
the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss.
Despite sending students home and closing its campuses, the
Defendant continues to charge for tuition, fees, and/or room and
board as if nothing has changed, continuing to reap the financial
benefit of millions of dollars from students, according to the
complaint. The Defendant does so despite students' complete
inability to continue school as normal, occupy campus buildings and
dormitories, or avail themselves of school programs and events. So
while students enrolled and paid the Defendant for a comprehensive
academic experience, the Defendant instead offers the Plaintiff
something far less: a limited online experience presented by Google
or Zoom, void of face-to-face faculty and peer interaction,
separated from program resources, and barred from facilities vital
to study. The Plaintiff did not bargain for such an experience.
While some colleges and universities have promised appropriate
and/or proportional refunds, the Defendant has only offered wholly
inadequate de minimis refunds and has not acted fairly, equitably,
and as required by the law, the Plaintiff contends. And, for some
students and families, the Defendant does so based on outdated
financial aid equations and collections, without taking into
account disruptions to family income, a particular concern now when
layoffs and furloughs are at record levels. As a result, the
Defendant's actions have financially damaged the Plaintiff and the
Class Members, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is enrolled as a full time student for the Spring
2020 academic term at the Defendant.
WUSTL is an institution of higher learning located in St. Louis,
Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David L. Grebel, Esq.
Michael S. Kruse, Jr., Esq.
NIEMEYER, GREBEL & KRUSE, LLC
211 N. Broadway, Suite 2950
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 241-1919
Fax: (314) 665-3017
Email: grebel@ngklawfirm.com
kruse@ngklawfirm.com
- and –
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, DC 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and –
Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (708) 628-4949
Email: dank@hbsslaw.com
whitneys@hbsslaw.com
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bryant Suit Transferred to California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Daniel Bryant, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Werner Enterprises,
Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Defendant, was transferred from the
San Bernardino Superior Court with the assigned Case No.
CIVDS2004179 to the United States District Court for the Central
District Of California on May 8, 202, and assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00994-JGB-KK.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Other.
Werner Enterprises, Inc. was founded in 1956 and is a
transportation and logistics company, with coverage throughout
North America, Asia, Europe, South America, Africa and Australia.
Werner maintains its global headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska and
maintains offices in the United States, Canada, Mexico and
China.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R Hawkins, Esq.
James Hawkins APLC
9880 Research Drive Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
- and -
Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
James Hawkins APLC
9880 Research Drive Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
- and -
Michael J S Calvo, Esq.
James Hawkins APLC
9880 Research Drive Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
WEST BEND: Paradigm Care Sues Over Refusal to Pay Insureds
----------------------------------------------------------
Paradigm Care & Enrichment Center, LLC and Paradigm Care &
Enrichment Center 2, LLC, and Creative Paths Learning Center, Inc.
and Creative Paths Infant Center, Inc., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00720-JPS (W.D. Wis., May 12, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for its refusal to pay its insureds
under its Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense,
Communicable Disease Business Income and Extra Expense, and Sue and
Labor coverages for losses suffered due to the COVID-19 crisis.
To protect their businesses in the event that they suddenly had to
suspend operations for reasons outside of their control, or if they
had to act in order to prevent further property damage, the
Plaintiffs purchased insurance coverage from West Bend Mutual
Insurance Company, including special property coverage, as set
forth in West Bend's Businessowners Special Property Coverage Form
(NS 0203 01 18I) ("Special Property Coverage Form").
West Bend's Special Property Coverage Form provides "Business
Income" coverage, which promises to pay for loss due to the
necessary suspension of operations following loss to property. West
Bend's Special Property Coverage Form also provides "Civil
Authority" coverage, which promises to pay for loss caused by the
action of a civil authority that prohibits access to the insured
premises. West Bend's Special Property Coverage Form also provides
"Extra Expense" coverage, which promises to pay the expense
incurred to minimize the suspension of business and to continue
operations.
The Plaintiffs were forced to suspend or reduce operations at their
childcare centers due to COVID-19 and the resultant closure orders
issued by civil authorities in Michigan and Illinois. The
Plaintiffs allege that West Bend has, on a widescale and uniform
basis, refused to pay its insureds under its Business Income, Civil
Authority, Extra Expense, Communicable Disease Business Income and
Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due
to COVID-19, any 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. Indeed, West Bend has denied Plaintiffs'
claims under their West Bend policies, says the complaint.
Plaintiff Paradigm Care owns and operates childcare and enrichment
centers in Waterford and Canton, Michigan.
West Bend Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance company
organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608-286-2302
Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com
jbowen@bbblawllp.com
jbair@bbblawllp.com
fbowen@bbblawllp.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 312-214-7900
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
lreasons@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Mark Lanier, Esq.
Alex Brown, Esq.
Skip McBride, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM
10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 100
Houston, TX 77064
Phone: (713) 659-5200
Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com
- and -
Douglas Daniels, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK
6363 Woodway, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
Phone: 713-917-0024
Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com
WESTBRAE NATURAL: Faces Clark Class Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westbrae Natural,
Inc. The case is styled as Howard Clark, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Westbrae Natural, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03221-JSC (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Westbrae Natural, Inc. markets natural food products. The Company
offers non-dairy beverages, snack foods, cookies, canned beans, and
soups.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
George Volney Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Fax: (212) 253-4272
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
ggranade@reesellp.com
WESTGATE RESORTS: Moore Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARILYN MOORE, RYAN and LAURA
SPADO, ELLEN and LARRY GILLILAND, GEROLD GALLEGOS and DEBORAH
CAMPBELL v. WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., L.P. a/k/a WESTGATE RESORTS,
LTD., CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC., WESTGATE RESORTS, INC.,
WESTGATE MARKETING, LLC, WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, LLC, and CFI
RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00410-DCLC-HBG (E.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying the case as a class action;
2. appointing Marilyn Moore, Ryan and Laura Spado, Ellen
and Larry Gilliland, and Gerold Gallegos and Deborah
Campbell as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing the law firms of Ritchie, Dillard, Davies &
Johnson, P.C and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
as Class Counsel.
Westgate operates as a resort development company.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Wayne A. Ritchie, Esq.
RITCHIE, DILLARD, DAVIES & JOHNSON, P.C.
606 W. Main Street, Suite 300
P.O. Box 1126
Knoxville, TN 37901-1126
Telephone: 865 524 8444
E-mail: war@rddjlaw.com
- and -
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
Christopher Coleman, Esq.
Kartik S. Madiraju, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: 615.313.9000
E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
kbyrd@lchb.com
ccoleman@lchb.com
kmadiraju@lchb.com
- and -
John O. Belcher, Esq.
FARMER PURCELL WHITE & LASSITER, PLLC
150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 1820
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: 615 810 8777
Facsimile: 615 810 8770
E-mail: jbelcher@fpwlegal.com
- and -
Richard T. Wallace, Esq.
Parkway Professional Plaza
109 Parkway - Suite 2
Sevierville, TN 37862
Telephone: 865 453 1143
Facsimile: 865 453 5448
E-mail: wallace@rwallacelaw.net
XTO ENERGY: Underpays Pipeline Inspectors, Isgett Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON ISGETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. XTO ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-00032 (W.D. Tex., April 30, 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 pipeline inspector from
October 2018 to July 2019.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Class Members often
worked 12 hours a day for 5-7 days a week and for months near
Pecos, Texas without enough days off to travel home. However,
Defendant paid Plaintiff and the Class Members a day rate with no
overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and pre-judgment and
post judgment interest.
XTO Energy, Inc. is a subsidiary of ExxonMobil Corporation, which
is the largest publicly traded international energy company with
operations throughout the world and in many U.S. states. [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
YRC WORLDWIDE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Lewis Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Christina Lewis, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Decision and Order, and Judgment both dated March
27, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Lewis v. YRC Worldwide
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-cv-1, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of YRC Worldwide
from March 10, 2014, through December 14, 2018, both dates
inclusive.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The appellate case is captioned as Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et
al., Case No. 20-1427, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Christina Lewis and Peter Szabo, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and City of Warwick
Retirement Fund, are represented by:
Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., are represented
by:
Ann M. Ashton, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 416-5825
Email: aashton@proskauer.com
- and -
Daniel J. French, Esq.
BARCLAY DAMON, LLP
Barclay Damon Tower
125 East Jefferson Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
Telephone: (315) 425-2804
Email: dfrench@barclaydamon.com
ZION OIL: Class Action Lead Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. (Nasdaq: ZN) disclosed that the lead
plaintiffs in the securities class action lawsuit filed against
Zion on August 9, 2018, have voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.
"Just as the consolidated derivative suit in Federal district court
in Delaware was dismissed last November, the securities class
action suit previously filed against Zion, Victor Carrillo, and
Mike Croswell, in the Northern District of Texas has now been
dismissed," stated Zion's President, Bill Avery. "Zion is thankful
that these lawsuits have been dismissed so that we can focus on
moving ahead with our oil exploration in Israel without
distraction."
CLASS ACTION SUIT DISMISSED
On March 3, 2020, Brantley Starr, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, signed an Order dismissing the
class action lawsuit without prejudice to its refiling by March 31,
2020. On March 30, 2020, however, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice (cannot be refiled) the class action suit
against Zion, Carrillo, and Croswell.
DERIVATIVE SUIT PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED
As mentioned in Zion's December 30, 2020, update, on November 26,
2019, Richard G. Andrews, United States District Judge for the
District of Delaware, signed an Order dismissing the consolidated
derivative suit filed against certain current and former directors
of Zion as well as Zion as a nominal defendant. The Plaintiffs'
deadline to appeal the Order was December 26, 2019, and Plaintiffs
did not appeal making dismissal final.
There is now no litigation pending against Zion.
Zion Oil & Gas, a public company traded on NASDAQ (ZN), explores
for oil and gas onshore in Israel on their 99,000-acre
Megiddo-Jezreel license area. [GN]
[*] Breach of Contract Class Actions Filed Amid Covid-19 Pandemic
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Fassbender, Marc Shapiro, Paige Pavone and Alex Lilly,
writing for Law.com, report that the United States and much of the
world are still in the worst of the global COVID-19 pandemic.
Businesses and schools remain closed and the daily death rate
remains high. Notwithstanding, plaintiffs' attorneys have begun
rapidly filing class actions for alleged breach of contract when
business services were impacted due to COVID-19. For example,
multiple cases have been filed against airlines for refund claims
arising out of flight cancellations; against ticket sellers and
marketplaces for refunds following cancelled events; against gyms
and fitness facilities for the charging of monthly membership fees
while facilities are closed; and against universities and other
facilities providing room and board.
In these cases, plaintiffs may attempt to portray companies as
shifting losses to consumers, exacerbating the financial hardship
of the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs also may ignore the steps
certain defendants have taken to make customers whole or minimize
any inconvenience or loss resulting from a situation that largely
is out of defendants' control. Defendants will want to navigate
these cases carefully from a public relations standpoint. [GN]
[^] 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
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,691 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is defending 3,691 asbestos-related
claims as of March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in
suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs
who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic
dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used
in certain paper mills.
"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the
fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range
of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available
until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful
estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with
respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts
already accrued for pending or future claims.
"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights. As of March 31, 2020, we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,833 claims. The
total cost of resolving all claims was US$10.4 million. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has
confirmed that we have approximately US$140 million of remaining
coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available
with respect to current and future asbestos claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/EiIwuj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,400 Pending Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., still defends
itself against approximately 1,400 pending active asbestos claims
in lawsuits at March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2020.
The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a predecessor of
Meritor, along with many other companies, has been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago. Liability for these claims was
transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business
from Rockwell in 1997. There were approximately 1,400 pending
active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many
other companies, as defendants at March 31, 2020 and September 30,
2019.
"A significant portion of the claims do not identify any Rockwell
products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to
asbestos attributable to Rockwell products, and past experience has
shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never
identify any of Rockwell products. Historically, AM has been
dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the
past with no payment to claimants. For those claimants who do show
that they worked with Rockwell products, management nevertheless
believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to
the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/NrMFiW
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $264MM for PI Matters at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC ("BNSF") has accrued US$264
million at March 31, 2020, for personal injury matters, including
asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020. The current portion of this amount is
US$70 million.
The Company states, "BNSF's personal injury liability includes the
cost of claims for employee work-related injuries, third-party
claims, and asbestos claims. BNSF records a liability for asserted
and unasserted claims when the expected loss is both probable and
reasonably estimable. Because of the uncertainty of the timing of
future payments, the liability is undiscounted. Defense and
processing costs, which are recorded on an as-reported basis, are
not included in the recorded liability. Expense accruals and
adjustments are classified as materials and other in the
Consolidated Statements of Income.
"Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are subject to
the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
rather than state workers' compensation laws. Resolution of these
cases under the FELA's fault-based system requires either a finding
of fault by a jury or an out of court settlement. Third-party
claims include claims by non-employees for compensatory damages and
may, from time to time, include requests for punitive damages or
treatment of the claim as a class action.
"BNSF estimates its personal injury liability claims and expense
using standard actuarial methodologies based on the covered
population, activity levels and trends in frequency, and the costs
of covered injuries. The Company monitors actual experience
against the forecasted number of claims to be received, the
forecasted number of claims closing with payment, and expected
claim payments and records adjustments as new events or changes in
estimates develop.
"BNSF is party to asbestos claims by employees and non-employees
who may have been exposed to asbestos. Because of the relatively
finite exposed population, the Company has recorded an estimate for
the full amount of probable exposure. This is determined through
an actuarial analysis based on estimates of the exposed population,
the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that
will likely require payment, and the cost per claim. Estimated
filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are
determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.
"The amount recorded by the Company for the personal injury
liability is based upon the best information currently available.
Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of
personal injury claims, it is reasonably possible that future costs
to resolve these claims may be different from the recorded amounts.
The Company estimates that costs to resolve the liability may
range from approximately US$225 million to US$325 million.
"Although the final outcome of these personal injury matters cannot
be predicted with certainty, it is the opinion of BNSF that none of
these items, when finally resolved, will have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity. However,
the occurrence of a number of these items in the same period could
have a material adverse effect on the results of operations in a
particular quarter or fiscal year."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jB2YNF
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,710 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., continues to face 7,710 asbestos-related claims as of March
31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended:
March 31, 2020.
Albany International states, "The Company's subsidiary, Brandon
Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), is also a separate defendant in
many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant,
despite never having manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos.
While Brandon was defending against 7,710 claims as of March 31,
2020, only twelve claims have been filed against Brandon since
January 1, 2012, and no settlement costs have been incurred since
2001. Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999, and has its own
insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999. Since 2004,
Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification
and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard
reservation of rights."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/EiIwuj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 121 Talcum Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company still defends 121 individual
asbestos-related cases pending against in state and federal courts
throughout the United States as of March 31, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
Colgate-Palmolive states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder
products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with
asbestos. Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants
from a variety of different industries, including suppliers of
asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company's
products, were designed to contain asbestos.
"As of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, there were 121
individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal
courts throughout the United States.
"During the three months ended March 31, 2020, five new cases were
filed and five cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal or
settlement. The value of the settlements in the quarter presented
was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the
period's results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/c8GwR8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Drops ERISA Suits vs. J&J over Talc Matters
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss two ERISA class action lawsuits,
but with leave to amend, related to asbestos contamination in body
powders, according to Johnson & Johnson's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2020.
The Company states, "In January 2019, two ERISA class action
lawsuits were filed by participants in the Johnson & Johnson
Savings Plan against Johnson & Johnson, its Pension and Benefits
Committee, and certain named officers in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by offering Johnson & Johnson stock
as a Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan investment option when it was
imprudent to do so because of failures to disclose alleged asbestos
contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily
JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder.
Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss.
"In April 2020, the Court granted the motion to dismiss but granted
leave to amend."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/JS9zPH
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has $696MM Liability at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has US$696 million liability as of March 31, 2020, for
the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or subsequently
asserted through 2059, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "In June 2016, the New York State Court of
Appeals issued its opinion in Dummitt v. Crane Co., affirming a
2012 verdict for US$4.9 million against us. In that opinion, the
court ruled that in certain circumstances we are legally
responsible for asbestos-containing materials made and sold by
third parties that others attached post-sale to our equipment.
This decision provided clarity regarding the nature of claims that
may proceed to trial in New York and greater predictability
regarding future claim activity. We also reflected the impact of
the Dummitt decision on our expected settlement values.
Accordingly, on December 31, 2016 we updated and extended our
asbestos liability estimate through 2059, the generally accepted
end point.
"Following our experience in the tort system post the Dummitt
decision, we entered into several, increasingly similar, group
settlements with various plaintiff firms, the most recent of which
was in the fourth quarter of 2019. We expect this new trend of
these types of group settlements to continue, and accordingly,
effective as of December 31, 2019, we updated our estimate of the
asbestos liability, including revised costs of settlement or
indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending
claims and future claims projected to be filed against us through
the same expected end point of 2059. Our estimate of the asbestos
liability for pending and future claims through 2059 is based on
the projected future asbestos costs resulting from our experience
using a range of reference periods for claims filed, settled and
dismissed. Based on this estimate, we recorded an additional
liability of US$255 million as of December 31, 2019.
"An aggregate liability of US$712 million is recorded as of
December 31, 2019 to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims
now pending or subsequently asserted through 2059, of which
approximately 85% is attributable to settlement and defense costs
for future claims projected to be filed through 2059. The
liability is reduced when cash payments are made in respect of
settled claims and defense costs. The liability was US$696 million
as of March 31, 2020. It is not possible to forecast when cash
payments related to the asbestos liability will be fully expended;
however, it is expected such cash payments will continue for a
number of years past 2059, due to the significant proportion of
future claims included in the estimated asbestos liability and the
lag time between the date a claim is filed and when it is resolved.
None of these estimated costs have been discounted to present
value due to the inability to reliably forecast the timing of
payments. The current portion of the total estimated liability at
December 31, 2019 and March 31, 2020 is US$65 million and
represents our best estimate of total asbestos costs expected to be
paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount is based upon the
actuarial model together with our prior year payment experience for
both settlement and defense costs."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cK3th4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $270MM Accrual at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) has accrued
US$270 million for pending and future asbestos-related claims and
related legal costs at March 31, 2020, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
Crown Holdings states, "As of March 31, 2020, the Company's accrual
for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal
costs was US$270 million, including US$227 million for unasserted
claims. The Company determines its accrual without limitation to a
specific time period."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/tl6cyz
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Still Defends Suits at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. continues to face asbestos-related
lawsuits pending in Louisiana state courts, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "We are one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging that defendants
manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing
asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been
utilized aboard our drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling
mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs
addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are not liable for
the damages asserted in the lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our
1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation. We are
unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these
lawsuits at this time but do not believe that our ultimate
liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a
material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/9gEvDI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Had $1BB Noncurrent Liabilities at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Inc. recorded Other Noncurrent Liabilities of US$1,048 million
related to asbestos matters as of March 31, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/fwi6ls
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records $154MM Gross Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company recorded gross liabilities for
both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs,
totaling US$154 million at March 31, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "We periodically, and at least annually, review
our existing reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable
estimate of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims, and estimate our receivables from probable insurance
recoveries. We recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$154
million and US$153 million at March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019,
respectively. In determining the estimate of our asbestos
liability, we evaluated claims over the next ten-year period. Due
to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on
new data and/or a change in circumstances arising in the future may
result in an increase in the recorded obligation, and that increase
could be significant.
"We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under
coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess
liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After
consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving
consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers,
the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance
carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we
expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We record a
receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that
recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a
particular recovery.
"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$95
million at both March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019. We expect
that approximately 60% of asbestos claim related losses would be
recoverable through insurance during the ten-year period covered by
the estimated liability. Of these amounts, US$13 million was
included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at both
March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019. The recorded receivable
consists of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place
agreements with certain primary and excess insurance carriers as
well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from certain
of our other excess insurance carriers.
"We believe that, at December 31, 2019, we had approximately US$555
million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place
agreements. We also had additional unsettled excess level policy
limits potentially applicable to such costs. We had coverage under
certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for
asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits pursuant
to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for indemnity
and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant to
coverage-in-place agreements.
"With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is
reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in
excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be
reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject
to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not
limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure),
alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and
disease alleged. Recoveries may be limited by insurer insolvencies
or financial difficulties. Depending upon the nature of these
characteristics or events, as well as the resolution of certain
legal issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible
by us."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/o3Y62A
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Faces Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is still facing
asbestos-related claims and actions, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "The Hartford also has been joined in actions
by asbestos plaintiffs asserting, among other things, that insurers
had a duty to protect the public from the dangers of asbestos and
that insurers committed unfair trade practices by asserting
defenses on behalf of their policyholders in the underlying
asbestos cases. Management expects that the ultimate liability, if
any, with respect to such lawsuits, after consideration of
provisions made for estimated losses, will not be material to the
consolidated financial condition of The Hartford. Nonetheless,
given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these
actions, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, the
outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a
material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or
cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.
"The Company continues to receive A&E claims. Asbestos claims
relate primarily to bodily injuries asserted by people who came in
contact with asbestos or products containing asbestos.
Environmental claims relate primarily to pollution and related
clean-up costs.
"The vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to
Run-off A&E, reported within the P&C Other Operations segment. In
addition, since 1986, the Company has written asbestos and
environmental exposures under general liability policies and
pollution liability under homeowners policies, which are reported
in the Commercial Lines and Personal Lines segments.
"Prior to 1986, the Company wrote several different categories of
insurance contracts that may cover A&E claims. First, the Company
wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an
insured's liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess and
umbrella policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses
that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the Company
acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks assumed by
other insurers writing primary, excess, umbrella and reinsurance
coverages.
"Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and
reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid
gross losses and expenses related to environmental and particularly
asbestos claims. The degree of variability of gross reserve
estimates for these exposures is significantly greater than for
other more traditional exposures.
"In the case of the reserves for asbestos exposures, factors
contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include inadequate
loss development patterns, plaintiffs' expanding theories of
liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, and inconsistent
emerging legal doctrines. Furthermore, over time, insurers,
including the Company, have experienced significant changes in the
rate at which asbestos claims are brought, the claims experience of
particular insureds, and the value of claims, making predictions of
future exposure from past experience uncertain. Plaintiffs and
insureds also have sought to use bankruptcy proceedings, including
"pre-packaged" bankruptcies, to accelerate and increase loss
payments by insurers. In addition, some policyholders have
asserted new classes of claims for coverages to which an aggregate
limit of liability may not apply. Further uncertainties include
insolvencies of other carriers and unanticipated developments
pertaining to the Company's ability to recover reinsurance for A&E
claims. Management believes these issues are not likely to be
resolved in the near future.
"For its Run-off A&E, as of March 31, 2020, the Company reported
US$842 million of net asbestos reserves and US$112 million of net
environmental reserves. While the Company believes that its
current Run-off A&E reserves are appropriate, significant
uncertainties limit our ability to estimate the ultimate reserves
necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses. The ultimate
liabilities, thus, could exceed the currently recorded reserves,
and any such additional liability, while not reasonably estimable
now, could be material to The Hartford's consolidated operating
results and liquidity."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/nuNizS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.3BB Liabilities at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded liabilities of US$2,309
million at March 31, 2020, for asbestos-related matters, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Honeywell is named in asbestos related
personal injury claims related to North American Refractories
Company ("NARCO"), which was sold in 1986, and Bendix Friction
Materials ("Bendix") business, which was sold in 2014."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/g3OHIb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 6,281 Bendix Claims Pending in March
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. had 6,281 unresolved asbestos-related
claims at March 31, 2020, involving predecessor company Bendix
Friction Materials business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
Of the 6,281 unresolved claims, 3,060 of which are for nonmalignant
claims while the remaining 3,221 are for mesothelioma and other
cancer claims.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/g3OHIb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had $804.8MM Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc. had an undiscounted asbestos-related liability of US$804.8
million as of March 31, 2020, for pending claims and unasserted
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps
LLC, are joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in
product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos
exposure. These claims allege that certain of their products sold
prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g.,
a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these
third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated
in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. Frequently,
the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or Goulds Pumps
LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, a
large majority of claims pending against the Company's subsidiaries
have been placed on inactive dockets because the plaintiff cannot
demonstrate a significant compensable loss. Our experience to date
is that a substantial portion of resolved claims have been
dismissed without payment by the Company's subsidiaries.
"We record a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. While it is
probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to
be filed against the Company, a liability for potential future
claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable due to
the variables and uncertainties inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential
recoveries. As of March 31, 2020, we have recorded an undiscounted
asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted claims
estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of US$804.8 million,
including expected legal fees, and an associated asset of US$420.8
million which represents estimated recoveries from insurers,
resulting in a net asbestos exposure of US$384.0 million."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/do1wFa
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Responds to Asbestos-Related Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson and certain named officers have answered the
securities class action complaint filed in New Jersey related to
failure to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 29, 2020.
The Company states, "In February 2018, a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson and certain named
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, alleging that Johnson & Johnson violated the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose alleged asbestos
contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily
JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that purchasers of Johnson &
Johnson's shares suffered losses as a result. Plaintiffs are
seeking damages.
"In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint and
briefing on the motion was complete as of August 2019.
"In December 2019, the Court denied, in part, the motion to
dismiss.
"In March 2020, Defendants answered the complaint."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/JS9zPH
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $498MM Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc estimated its asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
to be US$498 million as of March 31, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
Johnson Controls states, "The Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as
defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos containing materials. These cases have typically involved
product liability claims based primarily on allegations of
manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that
either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing
components.
"As of March 31, 2020, the Company's estimated asbestos related net
liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position was US$165 million.
The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of US$498 million, of which US$50 million
was recorded in other current liabilities and US$448 million was
recorded in other noncurrent liabilities.
"The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated
statements of financial position of US$333 million, of which US$62
million was recorded in other current assets, and US$271 million
was recorded in other noncurrent assets. Assets included US$13
million of cash and US$251 million of investments, which have all
been designated as restricted.
"In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related
insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such
recoveries recorded at March 31, 2020 was US$69 million. As of
September 30, 2019, the Company's estimated asbestos related net
liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position was US$141 million.
The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of US$507 million, of which US$50 million
was recorded in other current liabilities and US$457 million was
recorded in other noncurrent liabilities.
"The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated
statements of financial position of US$366 million, of which US$46
million was recorded in other current assets, and US$320 million
was recorded in other noncurrent assets. Assets included US$16
million of cash and US$273 million of investments, which have all
been designated as restricted. In connection with the recognition
of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records
asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount
of such recoveries recorded at September 30, 2019 was US$77
million."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/O0usCq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Had US$87MM Reserves at March 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 29, 2020, that it had reserves of US$87 million as of March
31, 2020 for asbestos-related liabilities.
Meritor states, "The company engaged a third-party advisor with
extensive experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to
conduct a study to estimate its potential undiscounted liability
for pending and future asbestos-related claims as of September 30,
2019. Management continuously monitors the underlying claims data
and experience for the purpose of assessing the appropriateness of
the assumptions used to estimate the liability.
"As of September 30, 2019, the estimated probable range of equally
likely possibilities of the company's obligation for
asbestos-related claims over the next 40 years is US$91 million to
US$181 million. Based on the information contained in the
actuarial study, and all other available information considered,
management concluded that no amount within the range of potential
liability was more likely than any other and, therefore, recorded a
liability at the low end of the range. The company recognized a
liability for pending and future claims over the next 40 years of
US$87 million as of March 31, 2020 and US$91 million as of
September 30, 2019.
"AM has insurance coverage that management believes covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance
retentions, for a significant portion of these claims. The
insurance receivables for Rockwell asbestos-related liabilities
totaled US$60 million and US$61 million as of March 31, 2020 and
September 30, 2019, respectively."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/NrMFiW
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 135 Cases at March 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 135 pending asbestos cases as of
March 29, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 29, 2020.
The Company states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. As of
March 29, 2020, the Company currently has three pending silica
cases and 135 pending asbestos cases. In total, 1,493 silica cases
and 78 asbestos cases were dismissed as of the end of the first
quarter, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or American
Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of AMCOL.
Twenty nine new asbestos cases were filed in the first quarter of
2020. Fourteen asbestos cases and no silica cases were dismissed
during the first quarter of 2020. Most of these claims do not
provide adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood
that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such
liability, if any. Additional claims of this nature may be made
against the Company or its subsidiaries. At this time management
anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and
the cost of defending such claims, will not have a material effect
on its financial position or results of operations.
"The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the
acquisition). We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
these cases since inception continues to be insignificant. The
majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases
against AMCOL or American Colloid, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc.
pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. The
Company is entitled to indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for
sales prior to the initial public offering. Of the 135 pending
asbestos cases as of the end of the first quarter, 113 of the
non-AMCOL cases are subject to indemnification, in whole or in
part, because the plaintiffs claim liability based on sales of
products that occurred either entirely before the initial public
offering, or both before and after the initial public offering. In
sixteen of the twenty remaining non-AMCOL cases as of the end of
the first quarter are subject to indemnity in part until dates of
exposure, which were not alleged in the complaint, can be
ascertained in discovery. In the four remaining non-AMCOL cases,
exposure is alleged to have been after the Company's initial public
offering in 1992. The remaining two cases involve AMCOL only, so
no Pfizer indemnity is available. Our experience has been that the
Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and
the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts
in these lawsuits."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/xc7Alk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Still Faces 591 Lawsuits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc. still defends itself against approximately 591
asbestos-related lawsuits involving approximately 1,167 claims as
of March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that
plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family
members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of
defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of
third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed.
"As of March 31, 2020, we are named a defendant in approximately
591 lawsuits involving approximately 1,167 claims. No asbestos
lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a
majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these
claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial
majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly,
we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely
settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from
insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that
the amounts of recovery are probable. It is not possible to
predict the outcome of these claims and proceedings. However, in
our opinion, the likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of
these claims and legal proceedings will have a material adverse
effect on our consolidated financial statements is remote."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/5cJNWK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Has 1,658 Exposure Lawsuits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
MSA Safety Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2020, that its subsidiary, Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC
("MSA LLC") was named as a defendant in 1,658 cumulative trauma
lawsuits comprised of 2,520 claims at March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Cumulative trauma product liability claims
involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and
coal dust) that occurred years ago and may have developed over long
periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis,
mesothelioma or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. The products at
issue were manufactured many years ago and are not currently
offered by MSA LLC. A reserve has been established with respect to
estimated amounts for cumulative trauma product liability claims
currently asserted but not yet resolved and incurred but not
reported ("IBNR") cumulative trauma product liability claims.
Because our cumulative trauma product liability risk is subject to
inherent uncertainties, including unfavorable trial rulings or
developments, an increase in newly filed claims, or more aggressive
settlement demands, and since MSA LLC is largely self-insured,
there can be no certainty that MSA LLC may not ultimately incur
losses in excess of presently recorded liabilities. These losses
could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating
results, financial condition and liquidity."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/WO6Eil
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 770 Pending Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's subsidiaries still defends themselves against
approximately 770 claims related to asbestos matters as of March
31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "Our current and former subsidiaries and
numerous other unaffiliated companies are named as defendants in
personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials. These cases typically involve
product liability claims based primarily on allegations of
manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that
either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with
asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-parties. Each
case typically names between several dozen to more than a hundred
corporate defendants. Our historical strategy has been to mount a
vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated suits dismissed,
and, where appropriate, settling suits before trial. Although a
large percentage of litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot
predict the extent to which we will be successful in resolving
lawsuits in the future.
"As of March 31, 2020, there were approximately 770 claims
outstanding against our subsidiaries. This amount is not adjusted
for claims that are not actively being prosecuted, identified
incorrect defendants, or duplicated other actions, which would
ultimately reflect our current estimate of the number of viable
claims made against us, our affiliates, or entities for which we
assumed responsibility in connection with acquisitions or
divestitures. In addition, the amount does not include certain
claims pending against third parties for which we have been
provided an indemnification."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/RvkABP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Estimates $85.8MM Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation estimates US$85,774,000 liabilities for
asbestos-related matters as of March 31, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company also estimates US$78,316,000 asbestos-related insurance
receivables as of March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "We recognize a liability for asbestos-related
contingencies that are probable of occurrence and reasonably
estimable. In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, we record asbestos-related insurance
receivables that are deemed probable.
"The liability projection period covers all current and future
indemnity and defense costs through 2064, which represents the
expected end of our asbestos liability exposure with no further
ongoing claims expected beyond that date. This conclusion was
based on our history and experience with the claims data, the
diminished volatility and consistency of observable claims data,
the period of time that has elapsed since we stopped manufacturing
products that contained encapsulated asbestos and an expected
downward trend in claims due to the average age of our claimants,
which is approaching the average life expectancy.
"To date, the indemnity and defense costs of our asbestos-related
product liability litigation have been substantially covered by
insurance. Although we have exhausted coverage under some of our
insurance policies, we believe that we have applicable primary,
excess and/or umbrella coverage for claims arising with respect to
most of the years during which we manufactured and marketed
asbestos-containing products. In addition, we have entered into a
cost sharing agreement with most of our primary, excess and
umbrella insurance carriers to facilitate the ongoing
administration and payment of claims covered by the carriers. The
cost sharing agreement may be terminated by any party, but will
continue until a party elects to terminate it. As of the filing
date for this report, the agreement has not been terminated, and no
carrier had informed us it intended to terminate the agreement. We
expect to continue to exhaust individual primary, excess and
umbrella coverages over time, and there is no assurance that such
exhaustion will not accelerate due to additional claims, damages
and settlements or that coverage will be available as expected. We
are responsible for uninsured indemnity and defense costs, and we
incurred an immaterial amount of expenses for the three months
ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively, related to such
costs.
"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables are based on facts known at the time
and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events,
such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average
cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time it takes to
dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers and the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the
numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the
United States, could cause the actual liability and insurance
recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those projected or
recorded."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/4Rw2ur
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $540.6MM Asbestos Liability at March 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation recorded US$540.6 million for asbestos product
liability matters at March 28, 2020, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2020.
The Company states, "Numerous claims, complaints and proceedings
arising in the ordinary course of business have been asserted or
are pending against us or certain of our subsidiaries
(collectively, "claims"). These claims relate to litigation
matters (e.g., class actions and contracts, intellectual property,
and competitive claims), environmental matters, product liability
matters (predominately associated with alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials), and other risk management matters
(e.g., general liability, automobile, and workers' compensation
claims). Additionally, we may become subject to other claims of
which we are currently unaware, which may be significant, or the
claims of which we are aware may result in our incurring
significantly greater loss than we anticipate. While we (and our
subsidiaries) maintain property, cargo, auto, product, general
liability, environmental, and directors' and officers' liability
insurance and have acquired rights under similar policies in
connection with acquisitions that we believe cover a significant
portion of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or
unavailable (e.g., in the case of insurer insolvency) to protect us
against potential loss exposures. Also, while we believe we are
entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these
claims, these rights may be insufficient or unavailable to protect
us against potential loss exposures.
"Our recorded liabilities related to these matters totaled US$580.4
million (including US$540.6 million for asbestos product liability
matters) and US$592.4 million (including US$552.2 million for
asbestos product liability matters) at March 28, 2020 and December
31, 2019, respectively. Of these amounts, US$505.4 million and
US$517.6 million are included in "Other long-term liabilities"
within our condensed consolidated balance sheets at March 28, 2020
and December 31, 2019, respectively, with the remainder included in
"Accrued expenses." The liabilities we record for these claims are
based on a number of assumptions, including historical claims and
payment experience and, with respect to asbestos claims, actuarial
estimates of the future period during which additional claims are
reasonably foreseeable. While we base our assumptions on facts
currently known to us, they entail inherently subjective judgments
and uncertainties. As a result, our current assumptions for
estimating these liabilities may not prove accurate, and we may be
required to adjust these liabilities in the future, which could
result in charges to earnings. These variances relative to current
expectations could have a material impact on our financial position
and results of operations.
"Our asbestos-related claims are typical in certain of the
industries in which we operate or pertain to legacy businesses we
no longer operate. It is not unusual in these cases for fifty or
more corporate entities to be named as defendants. We vigorously
defend these claims, many of which are dismissed without payment,
and the significant majority of costs related to these claims have
historically been paid pursuant to our insurance arrangements.
During the three months ended March 28, 2020, our payments for
asbestos-related matters, net of insurance recoveries of US$7.8
million, were US$4.2 million. During the three months ended March
30, 2019, our payments for asbestos-related matters, net of
insurance recoveries of US$11.2 million, were US$2.8 million. A
significant increase in claims, costs and/or issues with existing
insurance coverage (e.g., dispute with or insolvency of insurer(s))
could have a material adverse impact on our share of future
payments related to these matters, and, as such, have a material
impact on our financial position, results of operations and cash
flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3csVO4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had $49.0MM Accrued Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. recorded accrued asbestos liabilities
of US$48,952,000 at March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related
liability, we have considered various factors including, among
other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related
liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our
settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the
jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and
results of such claims. As is our accounting policy, we consider
the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing
asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim
liability; and perform an actuarial evaluation in the third quarter
of each year and whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate that additional provisions may be necessary. The
methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs
in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available
from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent
claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3)
an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an analysis of
our settlements to date in order to develop average settlement
values. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study
and all other available information considered by us, we have
concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments
and awards of asbestos-related damages was more likely than any
other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we
compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to
determine if an adjustment is required."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6DQxZh
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 201 PI Lawsuits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. is still defending itself against
approximately 201 asbestos-related lawsuits with a corresponding
number of plaintiffs as of March 31, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising
out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers,
and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.
"As of March 31, 2020, the subsidiary was a defendant in
approximately 201 lawsuits with a corresponding number of
plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all
or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the
basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries.
The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989.
"In September 2018, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a
settlement of outstanding disputes that leaves the subsidiary with
funding, including cash, annuities and coverage in place
settlement, that we believe will be sufficient to respond to both
the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar
nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the
outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability,
if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse
effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ykYaFT
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 808 Active Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation remains a defendant in
approximately 808 active cases involving approximately 2,400
plaintiffs as of March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
The Company states, "As of March 31, 2020, U.S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 808 active cases involving approximately
2,400 plaintiffs. The vast majority of these cases involve
multiple defendants. About 1,540, or approximately 64 percent, of
these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which
permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At December 31,
2019, U.S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 800 active cases
involving approximately 2,390 plaintiffs. Based upon U.S. Steel's
experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of
plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U.S. Steel will
likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs.
"Historically, asbestos-related claims against U.S. Steel fall into
three groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were exposed
to asbestos on the premises of U.S. Steel facilities; (2) claims
made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured by U.S.
Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and maritime laws
by employees of former operations of U.S. Steel.
"The amount U.S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U.S. Steel's financial condition. However, U.S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Wd5nZY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.1BB Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,148
million at March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.
Union Carbide states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades. These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products
that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted
from exposure to the Corporation's products.
"The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.
"The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,148 million
at March 31, 2020, and approximately 19 percent of the recorded
claim liability related to pending claims and approximately 81
percent related to future claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/oOStcU
*********
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 ***