/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200616.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, June 16, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 120
Headlines
ABBVIE INC: Averts Humira Antitrust Class Action
ACTAVIS: ADHD Med Buyers Can't Pause Antitrust Suit Amid Appeal
AMERICAN ADVISORS: August 4 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
ARCH INSURANCE: Faces Osborn Class Suit in District of New Jersey
AUSTIN'S NATURAL: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in NY
AUSTRALIA: Gordon Legal Wants $721M Robo-Debt Refund Sped Up
BAYER CORP: No Jurisdiction for Essure Class Action in Illinois
BED BATH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Securities Class Action
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Drug User Sues Over Methadone Switch
BURMA SUPERSTAR: Employees Win $1.3 Million in Class Action
CAPITOL ONE FINANCIAL: Packett Alleges Violation under FLSA
CARNIVAL CORP: July 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CBS TELEVISION: Harapeti Sues Alleging Violations of EPA & ADEA
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Sued Over Alleged Fake Sale Scams
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Won't Cover COVID-19 Losses, Gilreath Says
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Insurance Class Action
COMODO GROUP: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Order in Johnson Suit
CREATIVE APPAREL CONCEPTS: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
CVS HEALTH: 99.99% Germ Killing Sanitizers Deceptive, Mier Claims
CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Gross Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
DIAMOND RESORTS: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Breaks, Lipson Says
DONALD J. TRUMP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss TCPA Class Action
DONALD TRUMP: Former Staffer Files Class Action Over NDA
DOREL INDUSTRIES: Averts Class Action Over Recalled Dressers
DRAPER JAMES: Faces Class Action Over Promotion
ELLATION LLC: Faces Class Action Over Digital Drops Application
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Virginia Court Rejects Tentative Settlement
ERIE COUNTY, PA: McMurray Files Civil Rights Suit
ERIE INSURANCE: Close Enterprises Files Suit in Pennsylvania
ERIE INSURANCE: Refuses Coverage for COVID Losses, Lock Loft Says
ESQUIVEL LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
FARMERS INSURANCE: Modesto Hotel Files Class Action
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Suit to Be Tried Over Zoom Videoconference
FITNESS FACTORY: NJ Supreme Court Gives Win to Class Action Lawyers
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Obertman Files Suit in Colorado
GENFOOT AMERICA INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
GIRARD, OH: Files Appeal in Black Suit to Supreme Court of Ohio
GO PLASTICS: May Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
GOLDEN GRAIN: Aug. 24 Claims Filing Deadline Set
GOOGLE INC: Accused of Tracking Incognito Mode Data
GREENLIGHT AUTO: Nolan Files TCPA Suit in Missouri
HANOVER INSURANCE: Sued Over Denied Business Interruption Claims
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
IQIYI INC: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of June 15 Deadline
IQIYI INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of June 15 Deadline
JUUL LABS: Steamboat Springs School Board Joins Class Action
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Files Cert. Petition in Senne FLSA Suit
LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA: Sued for Not Giving Ticket Refunds
LONOLIFE INC: Kiler Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
LOS ANGELES POLICE: Sued by BLM-LA Over Mass Detention
LOUISIANA: Class Action Seeks Furlough Extension for Youth
LUCKIN COFFEE: Faces Kimson Securities Suit Over ADR Shares Drop
MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ: Litton Suit Transferred to Arkansas
MAINE: Judge Denies First Motion in Prison Class Action
MERRILL LYNCH: Class Action Claim vs. Sweep Program Dismissed
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: ACLU Sues to Defend Press Freedom at Protests
MVP STAFFING: Averts Racial Discrimination Class Action
MYERS & SONS: Faces Toy Employment Suit in California Super. Ct.
NORTH CAROLINA: Hallinan Questions Inmates' Safety From COVID-19
PRETTYLITTLETHING.COM USA: Hilton Sues Over Deceptive Sale Price
QBE: Faces Business Interruption Class Action
RADIO SYSTEMS CORP: Kiler Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
RED WING BRANDS: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
S-L DISTRIBUTION: Vrabac Suit Transferred to Pennsylvania
SANDIA LABORATORY: Rader Files Suit in New Mexico
SCWORX CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of June 29 Deadline
SNHU: Awlia Seeks Tuition Fee Refund Due to COVID-19
SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Faces Class Action Over Water Contamination
SOUTHERN PINE: Harper Appeals S.D. Miss. Ruling to Fifth Circuit
STUMPTOWN COFFEE: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
SUMMIT CAPITAL: Faces Naiman TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
SURF OR SOUND REALTY: Hit With Class Action Over Denied Refunds
SUTTELL & HAMMER: Bjornsdotter Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Class Suit
TARCO SPECIALTY: Kirsch Research Says Roof Design Patent Infringed
TESLA INC: Canadian Owners Sue Over Paint Issues
TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Model 3 Paint Issues
TEVA PHARMA: Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts Ongoing
TEVA PHARMA: Suit Over Drug Pricing Strategies in Discovery
UNITED STATES: Lopez Files Class Action in Minnesota
UNIVERSAL INSURANCE: Leach Files Breach of Insurance
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Yoo Wants Fee Refund Over COVID Closure
WELLS FARGO: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of August 3 Deadline
WELLS FARGO: Settlement Objectors More Parasitic Than Productive
WEWORK COMPANIES: Hit With Class Action Over Failed IPO
YOUFIT HEALTH: Faces Davis Suit Over Recurring Monthly Fees
ZOOM VIDEO: Fails to Provide Data Security, Saint Paulus et al. Say
[*] Businesses Face Class Action Risks Post-COVID-19
[*] Class Actions Against Cannabis Companies on the Rise
[*] Grande Prairie Joins C$10 Billion Suit vs. Opioid Manufacturers
[*] Lethbridge, CA Mayor Wants to Join $10 Billion Opioid Suit
[*] Plaintiffs w/o Injury Lack Standing to Sue Under ERISA
[*] UK Art Organizations Readying Lawsuits vs. Insurers
*********
ABBVIE INC: Averts Humira Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that AbbVie Inc.,
Amgen Inc., a Samsung subsidiary, and Novartis unit Sandoz Inc.
don't have to face antitrust claims over patent infringement
settlements that delayed generic competition for the blockbuster
arthritis drug Humira, a Chicago federal judge ruled on June 8.
"AbbVie has exploited advantages conferred on it through lawful
practices," Judge Manish S. Shah wrote. "To the extent this has
kept prices high for Humira, existing antitrust doctrine does not
prohibit it."
The proposed class action accused AbbVie of shielding its monopoly
on Humira--the country's top-selling prescription drug, with $20
billion a year in global sales--with more than 100 patents,
including many that won't expire until 2034. Humira injections cost
about $4,500 a month.
AbbVie's "patent thicket" deterred generics by ensuring that
invalidation of any one—or any 99—wouldn't open the market,
according to the lawsuit, which was consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
"indirect purchasers" led by unions.
The other drugmakers targeted in the suit sought to launch Humira
"biosimilars," or generics, before being hit with patent
infringement claims. AbbVie allegedly resolved those cases by
licensing them to sell their drugs in Europe while keeping the U.S.
market clear for its flagship brand.
Those settlements were illegal market allocation agreements and
"reverse payment" deals, the suit said.
Such settlements--so called because they involve payments from a
plaintiff to a defendant, rather than in the normal direction--were
once generally considered legal, but they've been subject to
antitrust scrutiny since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in
FTC v. Actavis.
Dismissing the case, Shah noted that patent applications are
normally covered by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which shields
companies from antitrust liability for petitioning the government.
Because AbbVie succeeded in obtaining the patents, its applications
didn't qualify for the "sham" exception, even if the suit described
"a kernel of objectively baseless petitioning," the judge found.
He acknowledged the hypothetical risk that "focusing only on each
individual action" might obscure "a broader pattern of
anti-competitive conduct."
But "the vast majority of the alleged scheme is immunized from
antitrust scrutiny, and what's left are a few sharp elbows thrown
at sophisticated competitors," Shah wrote.
Nor did the company use its patents in prohibited ways when it
leveraged them into settlements, the judge said.
AbbVie continued selling brand-name Humira in Europe, and the
launch of generic alternatives actually made the market more
competitive, he found.
AbbVie is represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Amgen is represented
by Sidley Austin LLP. Samsung is represented by O'Melveny & Myers
LLP. Sandoz is represented by Baker Botts LLP and Benesch
Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP.
Labaton Sucharow LLP, Girard Sharp LLP, and Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP are interim co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
The case is In re Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litig., N.D. Ill.,
No. 19-cv-1873, 6/8/20. [GN]
ACTAVIS: ADHD Med Buyers Can't Pause Antitrust Suit Amid Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that parents who say they overpaid for their
children's' ADHD medications can't pause their antitrust suit
against Actavis and Shire while they appeal the court's decision to
deny them class certification, a Massachusetts federal judge ruled
on June 8. [GN]
AMERICAN ADVISORS: August 4 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paronich Law, P.C. on June 8 disclosed that a Settlement has been
reached with American Advisors Group ("AAG") in a class action
lawsuit about whether AAG made unsolicited automated telephone
calls, including to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.
AAG denies wrongdoing and liability, and both sides disagree on how
much, if anything, the class could have recovered after trial, or
if a class action could have been maintained. The Court has not
decided which side is right.
You are included in the Settlement as a "Settlement Class Member"
if you are a regular user or subscriber to a telephone number a
call was made or attempted by AAG, either directly or by one of
their vendors for the benefit of AAG that implicates the
protections of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §
227, from January 1, 2017 to May 1, 2020.
The Settlement provides $3,500,000 to pay claims of eligible
Settlement Class Members, Fees, Costs, and Expenses to Settlement
Class Counsel, a Service Payment to Plaintiff, and costs of
Settlement administration. Settlement Class Members who timely and
validly file a claim may receive between $20 and $40. To receive a
Settlement award, you must have a telephone number that is on the
list provided by AAG of numbers it called and timely submit a valid
Claim Form by August 4, 2020. A Claim Form is available at
www.tcpasettlementaag.com.
If you don't want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must
exclude yourself by August 4, 2020, or you won't be able to sue AAG
or others involved with the calls at issue about the legal claims
in the Action ever again. If you stay in the Settlement but object
to its terms, you must lodge your objection by
August 4, 2020.
For complete information about the Settlement and to learn more
about how to exercise your various options visit
www.tcpasettlementaag.com or call 1-855-786-0906. [GN]
ARCH INSURANCE: Faces Osborn Class Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arch Insurance
Company. The case is captioned as RONALD OSBORN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARCH INSURANCE
COMPANY; and OUT OF TOWNE, LLC, doing business as: RED SKY TRAVEL
INSURANCE, Case No. 2:20-cv-06345-ES-CLW (D.N.J., May 26, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Esther Salas.
The lawsuit involves insurance contract-related matters.
Arch offers property, casualty, and specialty insurance for
corporations, professional firms, and financial institutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Joseph Obergfell, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER PA
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10106
Telephone: (646) 837-7129
E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
AUSTIN'S NATURAL: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in NY
------------------------------------------------
Austin's Natural Frozen Pops, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Angel Rodriguez, Plaintiff v. Austin's Natural Frozen
Pops, Inc., individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02574 (E.D.
N.Y., June 10, 2020).
Austin's Natural Frozen Pops, Inc. (trade name Goodpop) is in the
Packaged Frozen Goods business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
AUSTRALIA: Gordon Legal Wants $721M Robo-Debt Refund Sped Up
------------------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that lawyers leading the
"robo-debt" class action say they will take the government to court
again if the repayment of $721 million of debt to welfare
recipients isn't sped up.
Gordon Legal is pursuing a class-action lawsuit over the unlawful
scheme that racked up debts against at least 600,000 Australians
who were told they had been overpaid for their Centrelink
benefits.
Peter Gordon's firm is leading a class action against the
government on behalf of people affected by robo-debt.
Peter Gordon's firm is leading a class action against the
government on behalf of people affected by robo-debt.
Government Services Minister Stuart Robert announced early June
that the government would refund 373,000 people for 470,000 debts
over the course of the year for a scheme he now admits was flawed.
Services Australia general manager Hank Jongen told The Age and The
Sydney Morning Herald refunds would begin next month until the end
of the next financial year, but most should be processed by
November.
The refunds, for debts accrued under the scheme since 2015 would
include any interest charges or recovery fees paid on related
debts, he said.
"We expect to process refunds to people whose details are current
relatively quickly and will progressively refund to those requiring
updates," Mr Jongen said.
Gordon Legal senior partner Peter Gordon urged the government to
return the money as soon as possible.
"If you have conceded that you've been holding people's money
unlawfully, you don't then get to say 'I'll pay it back over the
course of the next 14 months'," Mr Gordon said.
"We would expect the Commonwealth to make expeditious arrangements
to refund that money . . . if they don't do that, we would take an
interest in the matter and we would invite the court to do that
too."
Mr Gordon said the refund doesn't account for damage caused and the
number of people affected.
More than 600,000 were sent debt notices and may be eligible for
the class action, with more than 50,000 having contacted the law
firm so far.
Mr Gordon said recipients suffered significant psychiatric injury
and relationship breakdown as a result.
"There are people that might have been annoyed by it and at the
other end of the scale, there are stories of people who suicided
where their families say this robo-debt, both the imposition of it,
the chasing of them and the mental anguish was the straw that broke
the camel's back," he said.
The government has denied robo-debt was linked to deaths, saying a
number of factors could have contributed.
Australia's Attorney-General Christian Porter has refused to
apologise for the automated debt recovery scheme, known as
'robodebt', which unlawfully issued welfare recipients with debt
notices.
Mr Gordon called for an apology from the government, which could be
given with an undertaking to ensure it would not be used in the
lawsuit.
"We'll take the steps that will mean there'll be no legal
downside," Mr Gordon said.
Lawyers warned federal government robodebt scheme was 'unlawful'
While Attorney-General Christian Porter said there was no lawful
basis for the way debts were raised, he could not apologise.
"There's litigation ongoing and that litigation argues amongst
other things, negligence, and we don't concede that," Mr Porter
told ABC TV's Insiders.
A trial in the Federal Court has been set down for July with
mediation between the two parties continuing.
The robo-debt system automatically matched tax office and
Centrelink data and, in many cases, incorrectly averaged out
people's annual income against their fortnightly welfare payment
and presumed there was a debt.
Advertisement
For the lead plaintiffs in the class action, that debt ranged from
$2000 to $11,000.
Mr Robert admitted the calculations were incorrect.
"As soon as this information came to light that showed there was a
lack of sufficiency, I moved to quickly pause all debts and refine
the program," he said on Friday.
The government stopped using the system from late November after
the Australian Tax Office advised the Department of Social Services
that the scheme was "unlawful."
The Federal Court has also found the scheme to be unlawful. [GN]
BAYER CORP: No Jurisdiction for Essure Class Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Mansur, writing for Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, reports that
Bayer Corp. successfully appealed a class-action case over its
Essure contraceptive device. The Illinois Supreme Court held
Illinois courts lack personal jurisdiction where most of the
plaintiffs don't live in the state and didn't have the
contraceptive implanted in Illinois.
A class of more than 100 women lack jurisdiction to sue Bayer Corp.
in Illinois court, the state's high court ruled unanimously in
early June 2020.
In light of a 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Illinois
Supreme Court reversed holdings from the 5th District Appellate
Court and a Madison County judge that allowed two consolidated
class-actions with non-Illinois plaintiffs against Bayer to
proceed.
The justices ruled that the nonresident plaintiffs who sued Bayer
over alleged injuries from the company's permanent contraceptive
device, Essure, could not claim the Illinois court has specific
personal jurisdiction.
The justices held the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California is the
controlling precedent.
In Bristol-Myers, the court ruled California did not have
jurisdiction in a lawsuit in which most of the 600 plaintiffs were
nonresidents who claimed harm from the drug Plavix.
"As was true in Bristol-Myers, in this case, defendants do not
dispute that they purposefully directed activities toward Illinois.
Bayer conducted clinical trials in Illinois (as well as various
other states), held a physician training program for Essure, and
coordinated a marketing strategy in Illinois," Justice Mary Jane
Theis wrote on behalf of the court.
"Yet, the question here is whether the nonresident plaintiffs'
claims arise out of, or relate to, those activities in any
meaningful sense of the terms. We find that they do not."
In July 2016, Madison County resident Christy Rios and 94
plaintiffs from 25 states sued Bayer over the alleged injuries from
the contraceptive implant.
Two weeks later, Illinois plaintiff Nichole Hamby and 85 plaintiffs
in 21 states sued Bayer alleging similar claims.
In December 2017, Bayer moved to dismiss both, arguing Illinois
lacked personal jurisdiction because most of the plaintiffs did not
live in the state or have the contraceptive implanted in Illinois.
In April 2018, Madison County circuit judges Dennis R. Ruth in the
Rios case and William M. Mudge in the Hamby case denied Bayer's
motions and found the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing
Illinois has jurisdiction.
A 5th District Appellate Court panel affirmed the decisions last
year and the Illinois Supreme Court accepted Bayer's appeal.
In the 12-page decision, Theis wrote the nonresident plaintiffs
have not identified "jurisdictionally relevant links between their
claims and Illinois."
"Where no adequate link exists between Illinois and the nonresident
plaintiffs' claims, it necessarily follows that Illinois lacks
specific personal jurisdiction over defendants as to those claims.
For these reasons, we hold that plaintiffs failed to meet their
burden of establishing a prima facie basis to exercise specific
personal jurisdiction over defendants as to the nonresident
plaintiffs' claims," she wrote.
In a special concurrence, Justice Thomas L. Kilbride, joined by
Justice P. Scott Neville, wrote the case "perfectly illustrates"
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's concerns articulated
in her Bristol-Myers dissent.
Sotomayor speculated that the holding in Bristol-Myers would "make
it difficult to aggregate the claims of plaintiffs across the
country whose claims may be worth little alone."
G. Sean Jez of Fleming Nolen & Jez LLP in Houston is one of the
attorneys for the plaintiffs.
He said the plaintiffs are disappointed by the court's decision.
"Unfortunately, this opinion decreases the advantage and efficiency
of consolidated state court litigation in cases that involve nearly
identical issues of liability. It will ultimately increase
piecemeal litigation with inconsistent results and only increase
the costs of litigation for all parties which defendants like Bayer
always say they want to avoid," Jez said.
Bayer is represented by a team of Sidley Austin LLP attorneys.
A statement from a Bayer spokesperson said the company is pleased
with the decision.
"The company stands behind the product's safety and efficacy, which
are demonstrated by an extensive body of research, undertaken by
Bayer and independent medical researchers, involving more than
200,000 women over the past two decades," the statement reads.
This case is Christy Rios, et al., v. Bayer Corporation, et al.,
2020 IL 125020. [GN]
BED BATH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action filed on behalf of investors
that purchased or acquired the securities of Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.
("Bed Bath & Beyond" or the "Company") (BBBY) between October 2,
2019 and February 11, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Bed Bath & Beyond securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit BBBY Shareholder
Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) that, due to "aggressive disposition of inventory,"
the Company lacked sufficient inventory in key categories to
support holiday sales; (2) that the Company's internal control over
inventory levels and financial reporting was not effective; (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was likely to
experience reduced sales; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On January 8, 2020, Bed Bath & Beyond withdrew its fiscal 2019
guidance, purportedly due to pressures on sales and profitability,
as well as a new strategic plan for the Company's operations.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.20, or over 19%, to
close at $13.40 per share on January 9, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
On February 11, 2020, Bed Bath & Beyond issued a press release
announcing preliminary fourth quarter 2019 financial results.
Therein, the Company disclosed "a 5.4% decline in comparable sales
driven primarily by store traffic declines combined with inventory
management issues," including that "inventory within certain key
categories in the Bed Bath & Beyond assortment was too low or
out-of-stock during the period."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.06 per share, or
over 20%, to close at $11.79 per share on February 12, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 15, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased BBBY securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/bedbathandbeyondinc-bbby-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-250/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years. [GN]
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Drug User Sues Over Methadone Switch
------------------------------------------------------
Camille Bains, writing for CBC News (Canada), reports that a drug
user "forced" to switch to a reformulated methadone treatment
introduced in British Columbia six years ago has filed a proposed
class-action lawsuit against the provincial government, the college
of pharmacists and a pharmaceutical company.
Laura Shaver was among an estimated 18,000 people given Methadose
instead of methadone, a change she said was done without
consultation and puts patients who relapse at risk of death from
illicit street drugs that could contain fentanyl.
Shaver and others taking compounded methadone as part of a daily
treatment program to try and quit opioids such as heroin have
maintained that Methadose is a weaker medication and causes painful
withdrawal symptoms for a high proportion of people who end up
seeking street drugs to cope.
"I hadn't used heroin in four years or something,'' she said.
"Within six days, I was a raging injection junkie again. The things
I went through, the sweats, the shakes. I don't even know where to
start."
Shaver, who heads the B.C. Association of People on Methadone, said
the withdrawal symptoms were so severe she took illicit drugs and
overdosed eight times.
"They did not give me or anybody else a choice," she said of the
province's decision, adding despite awareness that Methadose caused
an increase in relapses, overdoses and deaths, it refused to allow
access to methadone as part of a change she believed saved money.
The Health Ministry, which is named as a defendant in a civil claim
filed in B.C. Supreme Court, made the switch to Methadose in 2014,
but the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions was created two
years later as overdose deaths related to fentanyl were increasing
and the province declared a public health emergency.
A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions said
the province had not yet been served with the court document.
The ministry did not immediately provide comment on the
allegations.
Drug company Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, and its parent company
Mallinckrodt Plc, are also named in the court document but neither
returned a request for comment. The College of Pharmacists of
British Columbia said it did not wish to make any comments about
the change to Methadose, which is dispensed by pharmacists.
"The defendants knew or ought to have known that restricting
patient access to compounded methadone and granting Mallinckrodt
the right to distribute Methadose as the exclusive (therapy)
medication in British Columbia could result in relapse and harms
associated with relapse," the court document says.
It says the province, the drug company and the college exaggerated
the relative efficacy of Methadose and asserted that patients who
switched from methadone should expect no adverse effects and
downplayed or denied the risks associated with the change.
All three defendants are liable for making negligent, inaccurate
and misleading representations to Shaver and members of the
proposed class action, as well as pharmacists and doctors, the
statement of claim says.
None of the allegations have been proven in court.
The lawsuit also alleges the charter rights of Shaver and other
proposed members of the class action were infringed as a result of
the "forced switch" to Methadose.
Shaver is claiming damages, restored access to methadone and
costs.
Suboxone recommended
The B.C. Centre on Substance Use recommends Suboxone as the
first-line treatment for opioid use disorder because it has fewer
side effects, is safer and can be taken home instead of being taken
in front of a pharmacist. Methadose is recommended next, followed
by slow-release morphine.
Jason Gratl, a lawyer representing Shaver in the lawsuit, which a
judge must certify as a class action, said people who relapsed on
Methadose deserve compensation to try to restore their "shattered
lives.''
"Numerous individuals and organizations have come forward to try to
persuade the province and the college of pharmacists to restore
access to compounded methadone," he said, adding the change would
be without cost. [GN]
BURMA SUPERSTAR: Employees Win $1.3 Million in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jay Barmann, writing for SFist, reports that a four-year-old case
of alleged wage theft and worker mistreatment at the Burma
Superstar restaurant chain has come to an end, with the owners of
the chain settling with current and former kitchen workers for $1.3
million.
The lawsuit was first filed in September 2016 by three former
employees on behalf of 100 others who were "similarly situated,"
claiming that co-owner Desmond Tan had violated state laws
governing hourly employees, overtime, and the sharing of tips with
back-of-house workers. Former dishwasher William Navarette told the
East Bay Express at the time that Tan withheld certain paychecks as
"deposits" to be paid after workers left the job, and classified
kitchen workers as salaried staff in order to avoid paying
overtime.
Ultimately, 353 current and former staffers at the restaurants --
which include Burma Love, B Star, Burma Bites, and Burma Superstar
locations in San Francisco, Oakland, and Alameda -- joined the
class, and as the Chronicle reports, the owners just decided to
settle the case.
In a statement, Tan remained adamant that there had been no
wrongdoing. "While we strongly disagreed with the allegations in
the class-action lawsuit, we settled the lawsuit in order to move
on," he said. "We are glad that this matter has come to an end, and
now we can continue to focus on doing what we love: providing the
Bay Area with delicious Burmese cuisine, while taking care of the
people that are with us today."
Tan added, "These are challenging times for all restaurants, but we
know that we will get through it with the support of our community
and our dedicated employees, who have been a huge part of our
success."
As part of the settlement, the owners have agreed to provide
employee manuals in several languages, restore tip sharing with
kitchen workers, provide holidays and paid time off, and provide
workers' rights training during paid time to staff and management.
Carole Vigne, director of the Wage Protection Program at Legal Aid
at Work, announced the settlement, and said in a statement, "We
hope better jobs await restaurant workers as they return to work."
Attorney Palyn Hung Mitchell of the Asian Law Caucus says in a
separate statement, per SF Weekly, "Even after a case is settled,
there's still a lot of fear." She says the workers in the case
"were just so brave," and that many of them are Burmese immigrants
who were initially afraid of speaking out against authority figures
due to the trauma they witnessed in their home country of Myanmar
a.k.a. Burma.
The case was filed at a time when at least two other Asian
restaurants in San Francisco had recently been found guilty of wage
theft, Yank Sing and Udupi Palace. In 2014, the owners of Yank Sing
agreed to pay $4 million in back pay and benefits to its largely
immigrant employees in a similar class action suit. [GN]
CAPITOL ONE FINANCIAL: Packett Alleges Violation under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capitol One Financial
Corporation. The case is styled as Kathy Packett, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capitol One
Financial Corporation, Capitol One, National Association and
Capitol One Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00404-MHL
(E.D. Va., June 9, 2020).
The docket of the case states that the suit was filed pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Capital One Financial Corporation is an American bank holding
company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and
savings accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia with operations
primarily in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Curwood Law Firm PLC
530 East Main Street, Suite 710
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: (804) 788-0808
Fax: (804) 767-6777
Email: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Rodney A. Satterwhite, Esq.
McGuireWoods LLP (Richmond)
800 East Canal Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: (804) 775-1000
Fax: (804) 775-1061
Email: rsatterwhite@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
Christopher Michael Michalik, Esq.
McGuireWoods LLP (Richmond)
800 East Canal Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: (804) 775-4343
Fax: (804) 775-1061
Email: cmichalik@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
Igor Mikhaylovich Babichenko, Esq.
McGuireWoods LLP (Richmond)
800 East Canal Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: (804) 775-1000
Fax: (804) 775-1061
Email: ibabichenko@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
Summer Laine Speight, Esq.
McGuireWoods LLP (Richmond)
800 East Canal Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: (804) 775-1839
Fax: (804) 698-2128
Email: sspeight@mcguirewoods.com
CARNIVAL CORP: July 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on June 8 disclosed that a complaint has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of Carnival Corporation ("Carnival" or
the "Company") (NYSE:CCL) between January 28, 2020 and May 1, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of
its officers (the "Complaint").
If you purchased shares of Carnival during the Class Period, and
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D.
Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300
Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at
(888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/cases-carnival-corporation.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) the
Company's medics were reporting increasing events of COVID-19
illness on the Company's ships; (2) Carnival was violating port of
call regulations by concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19
infections on board its ships; (3) in responding to the outbreak of
COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow the Company's own health and
safety protocols developed in the wake of other communicable
disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to operate, Carnival ships
were responsible for continuing to spread COVID-19 at various ports
throughout the world; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. As a result of defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, on February 5, 3,700 passengers and
crew were quarantined about the Diamond Princess, a Gem-class ship
operated by Princess Cruises, a cruise line owned by Carnival. Then
on February 20, the Grand Princess, the first of the Grand-class
cruise ships, docked in San Francisco and at least one known COVID
infected person disembarked. That COVID infected individual had
reportedly been seen by the ship doctor, exhibiting symptoms for at
least six days while on board the Grand Princess. By March 4, 2020
there was a COVID related fatality on board the Grand Princess, and
seven (7) Company ships accounted for 49 of the 70 cruise ship
fatalities.
Then, on April 16, 2020, when the Company still had at sea two (2)
of its cruise ships, Bloomberg Businessweek published an article
titled "Carnival Executives Knew They Had a Virus Problem, But Kept
the Party Going," which revealed that Carnival may have failed to
adequately protect passengers from COVID-19 on a series of cruise
voyages and indeed continued to operate new cruise departures
despite knowledge of the proliferation of COVID-19. On this news,
the Company's share price fell $0.53 per share from a prior close
of $12.38 per share to close at $11.85 per share on April 16,
2020.
Finally, on May 1, 2020, The Wall Street Journal published an
article titled "Cruise Ships Set Sail Knowing the Deadly Risk to
Passengers and Crew," which detailed how cruise ships, including
Carnival ships, facilitated the spread of COVID-19 and provided new
facts about early warning signs Carnival and its cruise lines
possessed and the Company's related COVID-19 disclosure failures.
The article also noted that testimony from an investigation in
Australia revealed that Carnival and its cruise lines may have
misled shore officials by concealing those exhibiting COVID-19
symptoms before docking. On the same day, it was revealed that the
Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and Chair of the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation had initiated a records request regarding the
response of Carnival to Covid-19 or other infectious disease
outbreaks aboard cruise ships.
On this news, shares of Carnival fell over 12%, closing at $13.93
per share on May 1, 2020, on heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 27, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware and New York, has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors
and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous
cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions,
shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
CONTACT:
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Seth D. Rigrodsky
Timothy J. MacFall
(888) 969-4242
(516) 683-3516
Fax: (302) 654-7530
info@rl-legal.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.co[GN]
CBS TELEVISION: Harapeti Sues Alleging Violations of EPA & ADEA
---------------------------------------------------------------
SILVA HARAPETI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CBS TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., a Foreign Profit
Corporation, Case No. 107964664 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., May
26, 2020), seeks damages for the Defendant's violation of the Equal
Pay Act 1936.
The Plaintiff also seeks damages for the Defendant's unlawful
discrimination and retaliation predicated on the Plaintiff's sex
(gender) and age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant on February 21, 2011,
as a freelance reporter, and worked for the Defendant on and off,
with the same title, until March 18, 2018. Throughout her time
working for the Defendant as a freelance reporter, the Plaintiff
was paid on a per-diem basis.
The Plaintiff was hired as a freelance reporter in 2011, 2012, and
2015. Each time the Plaintiff was hired, the Defendant assured her
that she would be considered for a full-time reporter position when
an opening became available. With this in mind, the Plaintiff says
she continued working as a freelance reporter with the hopes that
she would be hired full-time, with a contract, salary, and benefits
when an opening became available. However, throughout her seven
years working for the Defendant, various opportunities for
full-time positions became available, yet the Plaintiff was never
offered a position, says the complaint.
CBS Television is a division of the CBS Entertainment Group unit of
ViacomCBS that owns and operates a group of American television
stations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
Daniel J. Bujan, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: pmh@rgpattomeys.com
dbujan@rgpattomeys.com
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Sued Over Alleged Fake Sale Scams
---------------------------------------------------
Gary Guthrie, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that the
Children's Place -- a specialty retailer of children's apparel and
accessories -- is facing a class action lawsuit brought by one of
its customers who alleges that the chain baits shoppers with emails
advertising bogus sales.
Washington state resident Elaine Dougan -- the customer behind the
lawsuit -- claims that the "sales" promoted in emails sent to her
were phony because the items that were supposedly discounted were
never even offered at the higher, "original" price, or if they
were, it was a rare occurrence.
According to TopClassActions, Dougan contends that since March 2019
-- and possibly before -- The Children's Place blasted out hundreds
of emails, all promoting fake sales.
She says that the deception starts right in the subject line,
touting discounts like "XX% Off Entire Site," "XX% Off Entire
Store," or similar language.
"Allegedly, The Children's Place is well aware that consumers are
more likely to make a purchase if they believe it is being offered
on sale, because they perceive its value to be higher than the
price," commented TopClassAction's Emily Sortor regarding the case.
"According to Dougan, the store took advantage of this essential
way that consumers attempt to understand value, and misled them by
misrepresenting the value of the items."
Other consumers raise issues
The Children's Place gets one star (out of five) from
ConsumerAffairs reviewers. Complaints include a lack of
follow-through, unauthorized charges, and unfulfilled refunds. One
reviewer -- Tiffany of Hanover, IN -- detailed an experience
similar to Dougan's.
"I ordered from The Children's Place on May 12th because they are
having a 60-70 percent off storewide/online sale. I understand that
shipping is taking longer than usual. . . . HOWEVER I most
definitely am not pleased that they have taken multiple
transactions out that I did not make," Tiffany writes.
"They are stealing from all customers and do so by drawing you in
with the sale. I ordered $143.43 of product and saved $201. Since
May 12th I have had 11 transactions come out totaling $546.50. I
have bought from the actual store multiple times so I had no reason
to believe they would do this."
The Children's Place has not yet replied to ConsumerAffairs'
request for comment on this issue.
Gary Guthrie
Gary Guthrie covers technology and travel for the ConsumerAffairs
news team. Prior to ConsumerAffairs, he was a programming
consultant for radio and TV stations in some 20 markets around the
U.S., as well as a presentation developer for the likes of Jack
Daniel's, Procter & Gamble, AT&T, and Columbia University. [GN]
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Won't Cover COVID-19 Losses, Gilreath Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilreath Family & Cosmetic Dentistry, Inc. d/b/a Gilreath Dental
Associates, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated v.
The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-02248-JPB (N.D.
Ga., May 26, 2020), arises from the Defendant's practice of
collecting premiums from the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
dental professionals to insure against the prospective loss of
business income when business operations are suspended through no
fault of the insured.
Now, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, when federal, state, and local
government "stay at home" orders and social distancing guidelines
and recommendations have affected approximately 95% of the U.S.
population to prohibit all non-essential and elective medical
procedures, the Defendant is denying dental office's business
income loss claims, asserting that COVID-19 is not a covered loss,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff contends that as shown by the policy terms and
conditions on the issued policy, the business income losses
attributed to COVID-19 are covered by the policy language and due
to be paid.
Gilreath offers cosmetic dentistry, family dentistry, and dental
implants.
Cincinnati Insurance is an Ohio for-profit insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Lampros, Esq.
Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
Gordon Van Remmen, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
400 Galleria Pkwy SE, Suite 1150
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
E-mail: alampros@hallandlampros.com
chall@hallandlampros.com
gordon@hallandlampros.com
- and -
Roger W. Orlando, Esq.
The ORLANDO Firm, P.C.
315 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 400
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (404) 373-1800
E-mail: roger@orlandofirm.com
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Insurance Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Shreya Mariam Job, writing for Reuters, reports that a class action
suit was filed against top lender Commonwealth Bank of Australia
over the sale of credit card and personal loan insurance.
The lawsuit filed by law firm Slater and Gordon against Australia's
largest bank claims that customers were charged for worthless
products.
The class action follows similar lawsuits against Australia's three
other big banks as the financial sector continues to face scrutiny
in the aftermath of a damaging public inquiry into the widespread
misconduct in the sector.
"Slater and Gordon is still being contacted by large numbers of
Commonwealth Bank customers who should never have been sold the
products, yet have never been remediated," Slater and Gordon
practice group leader Andrew Paull said in a statement.
A CBA spokesperson said the bank had not been served with legal
proceedings but that it would consider any allegations once it has
the lawsuit in hand.
Similar lawsuits against Westpac Banking Corp and Australia and New
Zealand Banking Group were filed in February, while National
Australia Bank Ltd reached a A$49.5-million ($34.37 million)
settlement in a class action lawsuit in November. [GN]
COMODO GROUP: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Order in Johnson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Comodo Group Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Michael Johnson v. Comodo Group Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2-16-cv-04469, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Susan D.
Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(i) denied in part Comodo's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, (ii) denied its Motion to
Exclude Plaintiff's Expert, and (iii) granted Johnson's Motion for
Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23.
Between 2012 and 2016, the Defendant made cold sales calls for its
then affiliate, Comodo CA Ltd., which was in the business of
issuing/selling Secure Sockets Layer ("SSL") Certificates to
website owners. SSL Certificates are encryption keys that enable
website owners to securely transfer data to and from their
customers. Each Certificate contains expiration date information
and often contains the user's (i.e., website operator's) name and
telephone number.
The Defendant used an automated computer program to crawl the
internet to compile a database of SSL Certificates, their
expiration dates, and their users' names and telephone numbers.
When contact information was not immediately available on a
Certificate, the Defendant supplemented the information by scanning
the target website or manually searching the WHOIS Registry, an
online database. Using this process, it formulated sales leads
containing phone numbers for soon-to-expire Certificates. The
Defendant's sales department would then load the leads into a
dialing platform called "VICIdial."
The appellate case is captioned as Michael Johnson v. Comodo Group
Inc, et al., Case No. 20-2113, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee MICHAEL JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
Defendant-Appellant COMODO GROUP INC. is represented by:
Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq.
Whitney M. Smith, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN
One Jefferson Road, 2nd Floor
Parsippany, NJ 07054
E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com
wsmith@kelleydrye.com
- and -
Paul A. Rosenthal, Esq.
David Zalman, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (973) 503-5943
E-mail: paulrosenthal@kelleydrye.com
dzalman@kelleydrye.com
Defendant-Appellee COMODO CA INC. is represented by:
Charles J. Falletta, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Greenbaum, Esq.
SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS
One Riverfront Plaza, 11th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 643-7000
E-mail: cfalletta@sillscummis.com
jgreenbaum@sillscummis.com
Intervenor-Respondent UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by:
Jonathan Kossak, Esq.
Lindsey Powell, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1100 L Street North West, Room 12302
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 305-0612
E-mail: jonathan.kossak@usdoj.gov
lindsey.e.powell@usdoj.gov
CREATIVE APPAREL CONCEPTS: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Creative Apparel Concepts, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Creative Apparel Concepts, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04429-GBD (S.D. N.Y., June 10, 2020).
Creative Apparel Concepts, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets
apparel for women, men and children.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
CVS HEALTH: 99.99% Germ Killing Sanitizers Deceptive, Mier Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CVS HEALTH, Rhode Island corporation; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01141024-CU-FR-CXC (Cal. Super.,
Orange Cty., May 26, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged
deceptive sale of alcohol-based hand-sanitizers.
According to the complaint, CVS printed on the bottles of its
hand-sanitizer a deceptive statement that the product kills 99.99%
of germs. CVS's Original Scent Moisturizing Hand Sanitizer and all
similar CVS brand hand sanitizers state on their bottles, "Kills
99.99% of Germs."
The Plaintiff contends that as a result of the Defendants'
deceptive and misleading practices, he and the Class Members were
induced to purchase hand-sanitizer, which does not perform as
advertised.
CVS Health is an American healthcare company that owns CVS
Pharmacy, a retail pharmacy chain, CVS Caremark, a pharmacy
benefits manager, Aetna, a health insurance provider, among many
other brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Robert Dart, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
RDart@wilshirelawfirm.com
CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Gross Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm is
informing shareholders of publicly-traded CytomX Therapeutics, Inc.
(CTMX) on the filing of a class action lawsuit.
Shareholders who purchased shares during the dates listed are
encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff
appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to
partake in any recovery.
CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (CTMX)
Investors Affected: May 17, 2018 - May 13, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CytomX had downplayed issues
with CX-072's efficacy observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical
program; (ii) CytomX had similarly downplayed issues with CX-2009's
efficacy and safety observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical
program; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cytomx-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7126&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Tel: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
DIAMOND RESORTS: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Breaks, Lipson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE LIPSON, an Individual, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated and On Behalf of the General Public as Private
Attorneys General v. DIAMOND RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC., an Arizona
business organization, AZIZ HAYMIT, a California resident; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01140471-CU-OE-CXC (Cal.
Super., Orange Cty., May 26, 2020), alleges that the Defendants
violated the California Labor Code by failing to provide meal and
rest breaks.
The Plaintiff contends that during the entirety of her employment
with the Defendants, she was not able to timely take
her meal breaks, and in some instances, she was unable to take a
meal break entirely. She adds that she was not reimbursed for job
related expenses she incurred; specifically, she was not reimbursed
for her cell phone usage. The Plaintiff was always required to be
on call and responsive via email using her cell phone.
In January 2019, the Plaintiff became employed with the Defendants
as an Activities Manager.
Diamond Resorts is a timeshare company headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neama Rahmani, Esq.
Ronald L. Zambrano, Esq.
Rosie Zilifyan, Esq.
WEST COAST EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, APLC
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3325
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 927-3700
Facsimile: (213) 927-3701
E-mail: efilings@westcoasttriallawyers.com
ron@westcoasttriallawyers.com
rosie@westcoasttriallawyers.com
DONALD J. TRUMP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Artin Betpera, Esq. -- artin.betpera@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that three individuals have sued Donald J. Trump for
President, Inc. (the "Campaign") in a class action for alleged
violations of the TCPA. Pederson v. Donald J. Trump for President,
Inc., No. CV 19-2735 (JRT/HB), 2020 WL 3047779 (D. Minn. June 8,
2020). The lawsuit stems from alleged automated text messages
these individuals received from the Campaign without their
consent.
The Campaign moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint on the
basis that (a) Plaintiffs could not establish Article III standing
arising out of concrete injury traceable to the text message
received from the Campaign; (b) Plaintiffs could not plead the
Campaign sent the texts in question using an ATDS; and (c) at least
one Plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate his claims against the
Campaign. The Court disagreed with each argument and denied the
Campaign's motion to dismiss.
In his ruling, Chief Judge John R. Tunheim found that a single text
message is enough to establish Article III standing to sue. While
the court acknowledged the Eleventh Circuit's contrary opinion in
Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162, 1172 (11th Cir. 2019), it agreed
with the "logic of the majority of circuits . . . that a text
message, while a different format than a phone call, voicemail, or
fax, presents at least an equivalent level of disturbance and
injury, and thus constitutes a cognizable injury under the TCPA."
The court also rejected the Campaign's challenge to Plaintiffs'
pleading of the Campaign's use of an ATDS. When faced with this
issue at the pleading stage, many courts (including those in
Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, but especially those in Circuits
like the Eighth that have not yet weighed in) have punted the issue
to be decided on summary judgment. In Pederson, the court
recognized the split, but swiftly concluded that the opinions of
the Second and Ninth Circuit -- finding that devices that dial from
lists are encompassed by the statutory definition of ATDS -- are
"more persuasive."
Lastly, the Campaign presented evidence that an individual entered
one of the Plaintiff's names into the Campaign's database, along
with his actual cell number. Plaintiff disputed that person was
him, and the court held that absent additional data "such as
location or IP data" (which was not provided), the Campaign had not
demonstrated "that [the plaintiff had] agreed to anything at all."
While the Campaign's arguments were each rejected by the district
court, this ruling may simply be a pit stop on the way to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal, particularly as to the purely legal
issues of Article III standing and the statutory definition of
ATDS. Given the clear split of authority on both issues and their
potentially dispositive nature, the lack of decisive guidance from
the Eighth Circuit to the lower courts makes this a ripe area for
appellate review. The Campaign may, therefore, decide to request
interlocutory appellate review of the district court's ruling.
[GN]
DONALD TRUMP: Former Staffer Files Class Action Over NDA
--------------------------------------------------------
Tahira Mohamedbhai, writing for the JURIST, reports that former
Trump campaign staffer Jessica Denson filed a class action lawsuit
on June 1 to request release from her non-disclosure agreement
(NDA) signed during the 2016 election cycle.
Denson, who worked as a national phone bank administrator and
Hispanic engagement coordinator, was required to sign a contract
before starting her employment. The class action declares that the
document is null and void, as the clauses are "wildly broad"
rendering them unlawful in both state and federal law.
The agreement prohibits employees, contractors and volunteers from
disclosing information about President Donald Trump, his family,
business and political affairs. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit
stating that the broad ban over speech "forever" by the agreement
violates the Fist Amendment. [GN]
DOREL INDUSTRIES: Averts Class Action Over Recalled Dressers
------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a proposed
class action against Dorel Industries Inc. must be dismissed
because it failed to allege specific defects in dressers that were
recalled for tip-over risks, a federal court in California ruled.
It also didn't allege what buyers' expectations were, the court
said.
"As the complaint stands, this case amounts to an attempt to recast
a no-injury products liability action as a consumer fraud claim,"
Judge William B. Shubb said June 5 for the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California.
But consumer Windi Winters will have a chance to re-plead, he said.
[GN]
DRAPER JAMES: Faces Class Action Over Promotion
-----------------------------------------------
Katie Townley, Esq. -- ktownley@kelleydrye.com -- and Gonzalo E.
Mon, Esq. -- gmon@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye, disclosed that
in April, Draper James -- the clothing line of Hollywood star Reese
Witherspoon -- conducted a promotion for teachers, but ran into
some communication issues along the way and is now the subject of a
class action lawsuit. In an Instagram post, the brand thanked
teachers for their work during the COVID-19 pandemic, and explained
that, to show their gratitude, Draper James "would like to give
teachers a free dress." Media outlets including The Today Show and
Good Morning America helped publicize the promotion, reporting that
the brand was "giving free dresses to teachers."
Teachers were instructed to apply by the stated deadline, and the
application process required that entrants provide their personal
contact information, as well as copies of their employee badges and
work email addresses. Many thought that they would receive, or at
least have a good chance to receive, a free dress. Unfortunately,
that was not the case. Although the Instagram post contained
caveats that the "offer [was] valid while supplies last[ed]" and
that the "winners" would be notified, it did not disclose that only
250 teachers would receive a free dress.
After receiving close to 1 million entries, Draper James announced
that the offer was a sweepstakes and provided all entrants with a
coupon for 20 to 30% off. The inevitable resulted: complaints,
angry comments on social media, and a class action lawsuit
alleging, among other things, breach of contract and violation of
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition
Law. The complaint, initially filed in Los Angeles County Superior
Court but removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, alleges that Draper James made an offer,
promising new dresses in exchange for entrants providing their
personal contact and employment information, and then breached that
promise. That entrants, even if they did not receive a free dress,
were added to the brand's email marketing database only added fuel
to the fire. The plaintiffs seek restitution and disgorgement, as
well as injunctive relief.
This promotion and its issues highlight the fact that, even if a
business is trying to do good, things can go wrong. It is important
that businesses communicate the material terms -- including any
restrictions or limitations -- of any promotion. When that
promotion is a sweepstakes, official rules are a must, as they lay
out the specifics (e.g., winner selection, prize quantity) and
provide protections for the business. For more information on
structuring and advertising sweepstakes and contests, please check
out our podcast or reach out to us directly. [GN]
ELLATION LLC: Faces Class Action Over Digital Drops Application
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Street reports that plaintiff Brandon Letize filed a class
action complaint against defendant Ellation, LLC for fraud.
Ellation is doing business as Crunchyroll and Rare Bits. The
plaintiff claimed that defendants misled consumers "about whether,
and how long, they could use the Digital Drops application or
'app,' and the digital stickers and other digital collectible items
purchased by consumers via that that app (the 'Products')." Letize
said as a result, plaintiff and class members purchased something
they thought they could use indefinitely but had at most six months
to use.
The app at issue, Digital Drops, "sold rare collectible digital
anime stickers and other digital collectible items." The products
sold on the Digital Drops app "were touted by Defendants as 'rare'
and 'highly collectible'" items. Once a person purchased the
digital stickers, they could be kept for a collection or traded
with another user. "Like any other collectible, the rarer the
digital sticker the more valuable . . . [Additionally,] the value
of rare stickers would rise over time. Defendants prominently and
frequently, touted these themes throughout the course of their
marketing and advertising of Digital Drops digital collectibles."
The defendants also allegedly indicated that once a product was
purchased, it "would be online indefinitely or, at least, for a
reasonable length of time from the date of release." However, in
early February, defendants announced that on February 17, they
would "shut down the servers running the Digital Drops app and that
the Products would no longer be accessible by its owner."
Therefore, on February 18, six months after Digital Drops was
launched, consumers including Letize "would no longer be able to
use the Digital Drops app at all, and Defendants will have
eliminated all of the collectible anime content purchased by
consumers."
The plaintiff claimed that Crunchyroll "leveraged its reputation
and brand recognition to further entice consumers to purchase its
purported highly collectible anime digital content, which consumers
believed would be available to them forever like any other
purchased product." Further, defendants "assured potential
consumers of collectible e-memorabilia through the Digital Drops
app that they were dealing with a legitimate company and that their
purchases would, in effect, be 'safe' and not subject to loss
within a matter of months after purchase."
Letize said in light of losing money on something that can no
longer be accessed, that "[i]n an incredulous statement, Defendants
attempt to assuage their consumers for their losses by equating the
purchase of their Digital Drops 'super rare' and 'valuable' digital
collectibles to the purchase of a movie ticket." Effectively,
stating that "your purchase provided you with an entertainment
experience for a certain amount of time."
The lawsuit alleged that the defendants violated California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law,
and California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff has sought
to certify a class action, to declare that defendants financially
responsible to notify class members, declaratory judgment for
defendants' violations, injunctive relief, an award for costs and
fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as
determined by the court.
The suit is filed in the Northern District of California. Letize is
represented by Reese LLP. [GN]
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Virginia Court Rejects Tentative Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a tentative
settlement in a lawsuit challenging Equifax Information Services
LLC's credit reporting procedures regarding bankruptcy was rejected
by a Virginia federal court, in part because the parties failed to
adequately explain their proposed reforms to Equifax's procedures.
Sarah Solomon alleges that Equifax correctly reported that the
debts listed in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy no longer existed, but
that the company didn't catch the subsequent discharge under
Chapter 7 of her later-incurred debt, making her appear to be a
worse credit risk than she really was. She filed a class action on
behalf of herself and similarly situated customers.
The parties reached a tentative settlement of Solomon's personal
claims, but the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia rejected it.
The two sides agreed that Equifax will adopt a complicated coding
procedure designed to pick up the discharge of new debt after the
conversion of a Chapter 13 to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. But the
parties haven't sufficiently explained this procedure, the court
said.
The parties agreed to abide by the changes ordered in a similar
case in California, with some modifications. But that decree
"contains pages of highly technical computer jargon,
incomprehensible to the Court," Judge John A. Gibney Jr. said.
Solomon and Equifax asked the court to hold that the changes comply
with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. "The Court has no idea whether
the settlement agreement complies with the laws of grammar and
punctuation, to say nothing of the FCRA," Gibney added.
The parties also agreed that Solomon's attorney Leonard Bennett and
his firm Consumer Litigation Associates would be barred for a time
from taking similar cases against Equifax. "This comes as no
surprise. Bennett and his firm have nettled credit reporting firms
for decades," the court said.
"Bennett has a limitless stable of clients with credit problems, an
encyclopedic knowledge of consumer law, and endless creativity in
finding new ways to sue credit bureaus. It is small wonder Equifax
wants him out of play," it added.
But such an agreement would go against the public interest,
particularly given the relatively few lawyers specializing in
consumer protection in Virginia, the court said.
The court gave the two sides leave to submit a modified
settlement.
Solomon is also represented by Boleman Law Firm. Equifax is
represented by King & Spalding LLP.
The case is Solomon v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, E.D. Va., No.
3:19-cv-00266, 6/8/20. [GN]
ERIE COUNTY, PA: McMurray Files Civil Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against officials of the Erie
County Board of Elections. The case is styled as Nate McMurray, a
Candidate for Congress and as an Enrolled Democratic Party Voter In
Erie County, Pauline Grabeki, as an Enrolled Republican Party Voter
in Erie County and Ronald Coons, as an Enrolled Democratic Party
Voter in Erie County, individually and on behalf of a Class of Erie
County Voters Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. Ralph M. Mohr,
individually and as Commissioners of the Erie County Board of
Elections, and the Erie County Board of Elections and Jeremy
Zellner, individually and as Commissioners of the Erie County Board
of Elections, and the Erie County Board of Elections, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00689-LJV (W.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights:
Voting filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act.
The Defendants are individuals exercising public function.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
Advocates for Justice
225 Broadway, Suite 1902
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (212) 285-1400
Fax: (212) 285-1410
- and -
Joshua E. Dubs, Esq.
37 Franklin Street, Suite 1110
Buffalo, NY 14202
Tel: (716) 854-2050
Fax: (716) 768-2258
Email: joshdubsesq@gmail.com
ERIE INSURANCE: Close Enterprises Files Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erie Insurance Group.
The case is styled as Close Enterprises Inc. doing business as:
Close Auto Sales, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Erie Insurance Group, also known as: Erie
Insurance Exchange, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00147-NR (W.D. Pa.,
June 9, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
over a Diversity-Insurance Contract.
Erie Insurance is a publicly held insurance company, offering auto,
home, commercial and life insurance through a network of
independent insurance agents. As of 2019, Erie Insurance Group is
ranked 381st among the largest public U.S. companies, in terms of
revenue, by Fortune magazine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
Levin Sedran & Berman
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: (215) 592-1500
Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
ERIE INSURANCE: Refuses Coverage for COVID Losses, Lock Loft Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE LOCK LOFT, LLC v. ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY
d/b/a ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No. 1:20cv122 (W.D. Pa., May
26, 2020), is brought by Lock Loft against Erie Insurance relating
to an insurance policy that insures the Plaintiff's property,
business operations, and potential liabilities in connection with
its business operations, which includes Income Protection Coverage,
Extra Expense coverage, and coverage for loss due to the actions of
a Civil Authority.
The Plaintiff says it made premium payments expecting in its time
of need the Defendant would make good on its contractual
obligations under the policy it wrote and issued. Then last month,
the Plaintiff was forced to shut down its businesses due to the
coronavirus pandemic and related events. Specifically, effective
March 18, 2020, during the term of the policy issued by Erie
Insurance to the Plaintiff, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine issued an
order closing barbershops, hair salons, nail salons, and tattoo
parlors in the State of Ohio to the public in an effort to address
the coronavirus and the pandemic.
As a result, many insureds filed insurance claims for IPC, EE
coverage, and coverage for loss due to the actions of a Civil
Authority. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant systematically
denied and or otherwise refused and continues to deny and refuse to
pay on insurance claims brought by the Plaintiff--and hundreds of
other putative class members--for coverage for losses stemming from
the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Erie Insurance is an insurance company engaged in the business of
selling insurance contracts to commercial entities, such as the
Plaintiff in Ohio and elsewhere.
Lock Loft specializes in skincare, lash lifts, tints, waxing, and
airbrush spray tanning.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert A. Rutter, Esq.
RUTTER & RUSSIN, LLC
One Summit Office Park, Suite 650
4700 Rockside Road
Cleveland, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 642-1425
Facsimile: (216) 642-0613
E-mail: brutter@OhioInsuranceLawyer.com
bobbyrutter@OhioInsuranceLawyer.com
- and -
Nicholas A. DiCello, Esq.
Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq.
Stuart Scott, Esq.
Jeremy A. Tor, Esq.
SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER, LLP
1001 Lakeside Ave., Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 696-3232
Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
E-mail: ndicello@spanglaw.com
dlansdowne@spanglaw.com
sscott@spanglaw.com
jtor@spanglaw.com
ESQUIVEL LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
Esquivel, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Esquivel, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04425 (S.D.
N.Y., June 10, 2020).
Esquivel, LLC makes handmade footwear for men and women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
FARMERS INSURANCE: Modesto Hotel Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
A Modesto hotel has filed a class-action lawsuit against all
Farmers Insurance companies -- Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck
Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, and Fire
Insurance Exchange -- accusing them of denying coverage under their
business protection policy amid the outbreak of COVID-19 and
mandated business closures, according to attorneys at Hagens
Berman.
Unlike other COVID-19 suits, this lawsuit goes after all Farmers
Insurance Group companies based in California because they all use
similar forms and procedures, which allows the cost of litigation
to be spread over a wider net, reducing costs for all involved.
This novel approach pursues an underlying claim that, despite
paying thousands of dollars for business interruption coverage for
"all risks" coverage, insureds were denied coverage following
orders that required physical alterations and restricted or limited
business operations, use of or access to facilities, and in-person
social interactions.
"Defendants' insureds dutifully paid premiums to Defendants—some
doing so year-after-year, to the tune of thousands or even tens of
thousands of dollars per year—so that when the unimaginable hit,
they would be protected," the lawsuit states. "Though Defendants
assure prospective customers that Farmers has 'a solid reputation
for doing the right thing for the right reason,' Defendants have
proven during the COVID-19 pandemic that this reputation is
undeserved."
The lawsuit filed by American Traders Inc., the owner and operator
of the Modesto Hotel, is against its insurer, Truck Insurance
Exchange, but also includes other Farmers subsidiaries, including
Fire Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance Company, accusing
them.
The law firm is asking to represent small business owners in a
class-action lawsuit against Farmers. If you have business
interruption or supply chain interruption coverage for your
business and have suffered a decline in revenue or been denied an
insurance claim, find out more about the lawsuit and your rights.
American Traders Inc.'s coverage should cover every one of those
unimaginable risks unless the policy exclusions removed that risk
from coverage, according to the lawsuit.
"Small businesses pay a high dollar for 'all risk' business
protection policies for a reason: to ensure that when the
unthinkable happens -- a major threat to their business, their
passion, their livelihood -- that they will have a safety net,"
said Rob Carey, a Hagens Berman partner. "Farmers Insurance has
breached its duty to its customers, choosing to abandon them in
their time of need -- the middle of a global pandemic."
"Businesses across the country have been subjected to orders that
have limited their operations, their ability to conduct business,
and their customer interaction as well as forced them to modify
their physical spaces. They now have to apply chemicals and ensure
physical distancing, which disrupts day-to-day business
operations," Carey added. "We believe Farmers is liable to its
customers who purchased these policies and dutifully paid their
premiums."
According to the complaint, the policy in question includes
coverage for loss of income, extra expense, property, liability and
other coverages -- "'for any peril, imaginable or unimaginable,
unless expressly limited or excluded" -- and has cost American
Traders, Inc. $31,070 a year.
The lawsuit states, "Defendants' interpretation of the policy
contract is wrong, and its denial of coverage for losses caused by
limitations on the physical use and access to insureds' property
breached the contract."
The suit seeks compensatory and statutory damages, and attorneys'
fees, interest, and declaratory relief and was filed June 4, 2020,
as a complex case in the Superior Court of California, County of
Stanislaus.
"Rather than giving equal consideration to the interests of the
insureds, as Defendants must do, evaluating each claim based on all
information that could be gathered from a fair and neutral
individualized investigation, as Defendants also must do, or
securing an outside counsel opinion on coverage to avoid bias, as
industry standards require, Defendants decided their denial
decision was correct and that no other reasonable interpretation of
the policy language to the contrary exists, and thus all claims
related to governmental orders limiting the use of or access to
insureds' property were invalid," the suit states.
Small Businesses Taking on Insurance Companies
Hagens Berman is investigating the rights of entrepreneurs and
small businesses suffering from sudden unforeseen loss of business,
supply chain interruption and event cancellations due to the
outbreak of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19.
"Fifty percent of small businesses have reported that they could
shutter after three months of a COVID-related shutdown. It's no
secret businesses across the nation are suffering in a way never
before seen," said Steve Berman, Hagens Berman's Managing Partner.
"We want to do everything in our power to support small businesses
against insurance bad faith and uphold their rights under business
protection policies."
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with nine offices across the
country. The firm's tenacious drive for plaintiffs' rights has
earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most
Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action
law. [GN]
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Suit to Be Tried Over Zoom Videoconference
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a class
action targeting Fidelity Investments' 401(k) plan that was once
slated to be heard by a rare advisory jury will now be tried over a
Zoom videoconference, a federal judge in Boston said on June 8.
The case's few outstanding issues will tried through a Zoom hearing
starting July 6, Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts said. The trial will center on
whether Fidelity's breaches of duty—established by Young in a
lengthy opinion from March—caused the participants in its 401(k)
plan to suffer any losses.
The lawsuit accuses Fidelity of filling its $17 billion 401(k) plan
"exclusively" with Fidelity-affiliated investments that earned fees
for the company. The case took an unusual turn in 2019, when Young
said he would empanel an advisory jury to hear evidence and give
him a nonbinding opinion on the case.
But two intervening developments—the Covid-19 health crisis and
Young's decision resolving key issues in favor of the plan
participants—combined to nix the advisory jury in favor of a Zoom
videoconference.
Young's order comes one month after the parties jointly requested
he forego the advisory jury in light of these developments. Last
week, the parties submitted a proposal to streamline the trial and
eliminate the need for certain testimony.
Nichols Kaster PLLP and Block & Leviton LLP represent the plan
participants. Goodwin Procter LLP represents Fidelity.
The case is Moitoso v. FMR LLC, D. Mass., No. 1:18-cv-12122,
electronic order 6/8/20. [GN]
FITNESS FACTORY: NJ Supreme Court Gives Win to Class Action Lawyers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that class action
lawyers have scored a win in New Jersey, with the state Supreme
Court extending the reach of a consumer protection law past what
two lower courts ruled.
On May 28, the Supreme Court decided that the Retail Installment
Sales Act (RISA) applies to a class action filed by a gym user who
is upset he chose a payment option that included a $30 initiation
fee. As the case progressed, the scope of RISA widened.
The trial court and the Appellate Division found that RISA only
applies to contracts with financing and that the monthly gym
membership fee included no financing.
However, the Supreme Court says RISA can apply to services
contracts because there is no requirement that a contract include a
financing arrangement to be covered by the law.
The decision could have an impact on companies that previously
didn't think the law applied to them. And it could be a tool for
class action lawyers looking to punish companies that charge
certain fees.
"The Legislature may determine that our reading today does not
comport with its original intentions," Justice Faustino
Fernandez-Vina wrote.
"If it so chooses, the Legislature may address this issue in the
future. For now, we are left to fulfill our role of interpreting
the text before us. We find that the plain text of RISA indicates
that it applies to services contracts without financing
arrangements, including Fitness Factory's membership contract."
The language of RISA included no "financing" requirement, the court
ruled, an argument supported by the Consumers League of New Jersey
and the National Association of Consumer Advocates, which were
represented by Motley Rice.
The New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance noted in its
amicus brief that installment contracts like the gym membership
charge no interest that could be raised without notification, and
thus consumers face very little risk, as opposed to financing
arrangements that include interest.
Henry Sanchez's case over the Fitness Factory's initiation fee will
now continue to determine if the gym contract violated RISA. [GN]
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Obertman Files Suit in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontier Airlines
Inc. The case is styled as Feliks Obertman, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontier Airlines
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01689-STV (D. Colo., June 10,
2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed over Diversity-Other Contract.
Frontier Airlines is an American ultra low-cost carrier
headquartered in Denver, Colorado. The eighth-largest commercial
airline in the US, Frontier Airlines operates flights to over 100
destinations throughout the United States and 30 international
destinations, and employs more than 3,000 air-travel
professionals.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
GENFOOT AMERICA INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Genfoot America Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Genfoot America Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-04427 (S.D. N.Y., June 10, 2020).
Genfoot America Inc. was founded in 1987. The company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of fabric used in the soles of
footwear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
GIRARD, OH: Files Appeal in Black Suit to Supreme Court of Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant City of Girard, Ohio, filed with the Supreme Court of
Ohio an appeal in the lawsuit styled Miles Black, Individually and
on Behalf of those Similarly Situated, et al. v. City of Girard,
Ohio, et al., Case No. 2020-0697.
Appellant City of Girard, Ohio, filed the appeal for the review of
the judgment of the Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals,
Trumbull, in the case titled Miles Black, Individually and on
Behalf of those Similarly Situated, et al. v. City of Girard, Ohio,
Case No. 2019-T-0050.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
is filed for negligent misrepresentation, for alleged violation of
the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act,
and for declaratory judgment and equitable restitution against the
Defendants, the City of Girard and Blue Line Solutions.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Melissa Black, John Beal, Miles Black,
Lorraine Morris, John Perfette, and Samuel Rotz are represented
by:
Marc Edward Dann, Esq.
Brian Daniel Flick, Esq.
Michael Andrew Smith, Esq.
DANN LAW FIRM
2728 Euclid Avenue, Ste. 300
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 373-053
E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com
bflick@dannlaw.com
msmith@dannlaw.com
Defendant-Appellant City of Girard, Ohio, is represented by:
James Michael Popson, Esq.
Robert Emmett Cahill, Esq.
SUTTER O'CONNELL
3600 Erieview Tower
1301 East 9th Street
Cleveland, OH 44114-1831
Telephone: (216) 928-2200
Facsimile: (216) 928-4400
E-mail: jpopson@sutter-law.com
rcahill@sutter-law.com
GO PLASTICS: May Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE MAY v. GO PLASTICS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02232-MHC (N.D. Ga.,
May 26, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees arising from the Defendant's violations of the
overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant deliberately avoided
paying him his full overtime hours by spreading his duties across
two positions during each workweek, and paying him overtime in his
second position only when he worked more than 40 hours in his
second position. This practice is illegal under federal law, he
alleges.
Mr. May was employed by the Defendant as a machine operator and a
shipping and receiving Agent at the same facility since February 8,
2019.
Go Plastics manufactures plastic products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone: 877-443-0999
E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com
GOLDEN GRAIN: Aug. 24 Claims Filing Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Heffler Claims Group
regarding the Brannin v. Golden Grain Company settlement.
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit, Brannin v.
Golden Grain Company, San Francisco Superior Court Case No.
CGC-16-555084. The lawsuit claims that Golden Grain violated
California law by packaging certain Near East brand products in
boxes that contained excessive amounts of empty space. Golden
Grain denies the claims in the lawsuit and any wrongdoing. Golden
Grain continues to stand by its Near East brand products and its
packaging.
Who's included?
The settlement includes all purchasers of the following Near East
brand products in California at any time from October 28, 2012 to
May 8, 2020:
Couscous products:
Broccoli & Cheese, Mediterranean Curry, Herbed Chicken, Parmesan,
Roasted Garlic & Olive Oil, Roasted Garlic & Olive Oil Wheat
Couscous, Toasted Pine Nut, Wild Mushroom & Herb, Roasted Garlic &
Olive Oil Pearled Couscous, and Basil & Herb Pearled Couscous.
Rice pilaf products:
Original Rice Pilaf, Brown Rice Pilaf, Lentil Rice Pilaf, Chicken
Rice Pilaf, Spanish Rice Pilaf, Garlic & Herb Rice Pilaf, Roasted
Chicken and Garlic Rice Pilaf, Original Long Grain and Wild Rice,
Garlic and Herb Long Grain and Wild Rice, Roasted Vegetable &
Chicken Long Grain & Wild Rice, Sesame Ginger Rice, Toasted Almond
Rice Pilaf, and Wild Mushroom & Herb Rice Pilaf.
Quinoa, whole grain and tabouleh products:
Roasted Red Pepper & Basil Quinoa, Rosemary & Olive Oil Quinoa,
Zesty Lemon Quinoa, Mediterranean Medley Quinoa, Roasted Pecan &
Garlic, and Tabouleh Mix.
What does the Settlement provide?
Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form with Proof
of Purchase by August 24, 2020 will receive $1.25 for each box
claimed that is supported by Proof of Purchase. Settlement Class
Members who do not have proof of their purchase who submit a valid
Claim Form by August 24, 2020 will receive $1.25 per box claimed
for up to six (6) boxes. Claimants who do not submit Proof of
Purchase are limited to one (1) claim per Household. In addition,
Golden Grain will modify the packaging of its Near East Products
for a period of five (5) years.
How do you get Benefits?
You must submit a valid Claim Form by August 24, 2020. Claim Forms
may be obtained on the Settlement Website,
www.branninsettlement.com, and may be submitted online or via U.S.
mail.
Your other options.
(1) Do nothing. If you do nothing, your rights will be affected
and you will not receive a settlement payment.
(2) Exclude yourself. If you do not want to be legally bound by
the Settlement, and want to preserve your right to sue the
Defendant for any claim resolved by this Settlement, you must
exclude yourself from it by August 24, 2020. If you exclude
yourself, you cannot obtain any payment from the Settlement.
(3) Object. If you stay in the Settlement (i.e., don't exclude
yourself), you may object to it by August 24, 2020. You can both
file a Claim Form and object. More information is in the detailed
Notice and Settlement Agreement available at
www.branninsettlement.com.
The Court's Fairness Hearing. The San Francisco Superior Court,
located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California, will
hold a hearing in this case on November 5, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. to
consider whether to approve: (1) the Settlement; (2) Class
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses of up to $500,000; and (3) incentive awards to each of the
three Class Representatives of $5,000. If approved, these fees,
costs and expenses and incentive awards will be paid separately by
the Defendant. You may appear at the hearing, but you do not have
to. You may also hire your own attorney, at your own expense, to
appear or speak for you at the hearing.
Your deadline to act is August 24, 2020. To obtain more
information, please visit www.branninsettlement.com or call
844-491-5737. [GN]
GOOGLE INC: Accused of Tracking Incognito Mode Data
---------------------------------------------------
ZDNet reported that a class action was filed in the District Court
of Northern California, accusing Google Inc. of tracking and
collecting browsing history without gaining permission from users.
The suit cites explicitly the company tracking users while they're
browsing in Incognito mode. It claims "millions of individuals" are
affected by Google tracking them without their knowledge.
Google is accused of collecting browsing data and other information
through services like Google Analytics, Google Ad Manager, and
other places. The Google Sign-In button for websites is also
mentioned in the class action against Google.
The suit alleges that anyone who visits a webpage or opens an app
that uses Google's services sends personal information to Google's
servers. The plaintiffs also claim that Google doesn't require
websites to disclose that this is happening, whether the user is
using private browsing or not.
"Google's practices infringe upon users' privacy; intentionally
deceive consumers; give Google and its employees power to learn
intimate details about individuals' lives, interests, and internet
usage; and make Google ‘one stop shopping' for any government,
private, or criminal actor who wants to undermine individuals'
privacy, security, or freedom," the class action reads.
The plaintiffs are seeking a rather large sum of $5,000 or three
times the actual damages, whichever is greater, per user.
Anyone with an Android device that viewed a website page containing
Google Analytics or Ad Manager in private browsing mode on that
device will be eligible to take part in the class action lawsuit.
Additionally, the users with a Google account who accessed a
website with those services on non-Android devices in private
browsing mode will be able to participate.
An issue the suit will likely face is that Google never actually
claims that there's no tracking in Incognito mode. In fact,
Google's Incognito mode support page reads, "Your activity isn't
hidden from websites you visit, your employer or school, or your
internet service provider." There's an entire page that breaks it
all down, and it makes it quite clear web service, website, search
engine, or provider may be able to see personal information, which
means this class action may be in for a tough fight. [GN]
GREENLIGHT AUTO: Nolan Files TCPA Suit in Missouri
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenlight Auto
Protection, LLC. The case is styled as Mollie Nolan, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Greenlight Auto Protection, LLC d/b/a Auto Protection Club, Joseph
Walski, Owen McCullough and Jason Cox, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-00751 (E.D. Mo., June 9, 2020).
The docket states the nature of suit as filed pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Greenlight Auto Protection LLC is in the General Automotive Repair
Shops business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samantha Joanne Orlowski, Esq.
HALVORSEN KLOTE
680 Craig Rd., Suite 104
St. Louis, MO 63141
Tel: (314) 451-1314
Fax: (314) 787-4323
Email: sam@hklawstl.com
HANOVER INSURANCE: Sued Over Denied Business Interruption Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business Mag, reports that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hanover Insurance
Group and one of its subsidiaries, Citizens Insurance Company of
America, over their denial of business interruption insurance
claims in the state of Michigan.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.
On March 24, 2020, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued
Executive Order No. 2020-21. The order required all non-essential
workers to stay at home, and for businesses uninvolved with
maintaining critical infrastructure to close operations. The
plaintiffs of the class action were all subject to the order, and
were not exempted.
The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs each purchased a
standard-form all-risk "Businessowners Coverage Form" property and
casualty insurance policy from either The Hanover or Citizens
Insurance. The plaintiffs also maintained that the policy promised
to cover direct physical property loss or damage. They also said
that under a "Civil Authority" provision, the defendants were to
pay lost net income, payroll costs, and other business expenses if
the plaintiffs' businesses were "suspended" for whatever
non-excluded reason.
But when the statewide shutdown order forced them to suspend their
operations, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants invoked a
"virus exclusion" to deny all business interruption coverage claims
related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
"At a time when the global coronavirus pandemic is wreaking havoc
on public health and the US economy, insurance companies are
engaging in a public campaign declaring that COVID-19-related
claims aren't covered," said Andrew Kochanowski, an attorney from
Sommers Schwartz PC representing the plaintiffs.
Kochanowski added that both Hanover and Citizens "conveniently -
but wrongly - interpret the virus exclusion in their favor,"
arguing that the pandemic was not the direct cause of his clients'
property damage, nor were any of the businesses suspended because
their premises needed to be decontaminated.
"The shutdown caused the losses, not the coronavirus," the attorney
maintained in a statement.
The plaintiffs seek damages from the alleged breach of contract and
a declaratory judgment that the defendants' policies provide
coverage for loss of business income and expenses caused by the
shutdown order. [GN]
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on June 9 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York captioned Clynes v. Hebron
Technology Co, et al., (Case No. 20-cv-04420) on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hebron Technology
Co., Ltd. ("Hebron" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HEBT) securities
between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from June 9,
2020, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action.
If you suffered a loss on your Hebron investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases-application/case-information/hebron-technology-co-ltd/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On June 3, 2020, Grizzly Research presented a report alleging that
Hebron is an "insider enrichment scheme without economic basis,"
citing questionable transactions including an undisclosed related
party transaction for nearly $26 million.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.26, or nearly 37%,
to close at $14.29 per share on June 3, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The stock continued to decline the next trading
session by $2.51, or nearly 18%, to close at $11.78 per share on
June 4, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that many of Hebron's acquisitions, including
Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved
undisclosed related parties; (2) that the Company's disclosure
controls regarding related party transactions was ineffective; and
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased Hebron securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles H. Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com
[GN]
IQIYI INC: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of June 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. and Of Counsel, Neil
Rothstein, Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action
Experience, including cases against ENRON and Halliburton) informs
investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
purchasers of securities of iQIYI, Inc. (NASDAQGS: IQ) between
March 29, 2018 and April 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Purchasers
of IQ securities during the Class Period are encouraged to contact
the Firm to discuss the case and their position in the class, no
later than June 15, 2020 -- the day petitions to serve as lead
plaintiff are due.
According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period, iQIYI materially
misled the investing public regarding its business and operations.
It is alleged, in part, that during the Class Period, iQIYI failed
to disclose that the Company inflated its revenue figures and user
numbers, and inflated its expenses to cover up a fraud. On April
7, 2020, Wolfpack Research released a report detailing, among other
things, how iQIYI had misled investors and failed to disclose
pertinent information generally and in its Registration Statement.
PLEASE NOTE: BARBUTO & JOHANSSON, P.A. RECOMMENDS THAT SHAREHOLDERS
WITH LOSSES EXCEEDING $100,000 CONTACT THE FIRM TODAY.
Applications for Lead Plaintiff are due on June 15, 2020.
If you purchased shares in iQIYI, Inc. within the period set forth
above, you may, at no obligation or cost, contact the Firm's
Managing Partner, Anthony Barbuto, at (888) 715-2520 or via email
at anthony@barjolaw.com; or Neil Rothstein by email at
neil@barjolaw.com. Shareholders can also fill out the online form
on the Firm's website. An attorney will contact you to discuss
this case, your options as a class member or any questions you have
about this process.
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A.
Anthony Barbuto, Esq.
+1-888-715-2520
12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101
Wellington, FL 33414
http://www.barjolaw.com
[GN]
IQIYI INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of June 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that a
federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
on behalf of investors that purchased iQIYI, Inc. (IQ) American
Depositary Shares ("ADS's") between March 29, 2018 and April 7,
2020 (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased ADS's of iQIYI, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of ADS's of iQIYI, Inc.,
you may, no later than June 15, 2020, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the ADS's of iQIYI, Inc.
On April 7, 2020, Wolfpack Research released a report detailing,
among other things, how iQIYI had misled investors and failed to
disclose pertinent information generally and in its March 2018
initial public offering Registration Statement, including:
-- iQIYI overstating its user numbers;
-- iQIYI inflating its revenues;
-- iQIYI inflating expenses and prices of assets to conceal its
revenue inflation; and
-- iQIYI issuing misleading financial reporting creating the
appearance of a cash generative company.
On this news, iQIYI's share price fell $0.99 per share over the
rest of the trading day and the next full trading day, or 5.6%, to
close at $16.51 per share on April 8, 2020.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at
(800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our
website at www.whafh.com. [GN]
JUUL LABS: Steamboat Springs School Board Joins Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Dequine Harden, writing for Steamboat Pilot & Today, reports
that the Steamboat Springs School Board voted unanimously to join a
class-action lawsuit against JUUL Labs, the manufacturer of popular
vaping devices.
The litigation, explained William Shinoff at the June 1 meeting, is
an attempt to hold the company accountable for the "vaping epidemic
that has been created on campuses across the country."
Shinoff said his firm, Frantz Law Group, represents 80 other
districts nationwide.
One JUUL pod contains approximately the same amount of nicotine as
a pack of cigarettes -- making its nicotine content one of the
highest among e-cigarettes on the market.
According to heart.org, in addition to being highly addictive,
nicotine can cause an increase in blood pressure, heart rate, flow
of blood to the heart and a narrowing of the arteries. Nicotine
also may contribute to the hardening of the arterial walls, which
in turn, may lead to a heart attack.
There is also evidence tying nicotine to oral, esophageal and
pancreatic cancer and damage to developing brains.
Between 2011 and 2015, e-cigarette use among high school and middle
school students increased 900%, according to Shinoff's
presentation.
Between 2017 and 2018, the number of youth e-cigarette users
increased by 1.5 million.
Shinoff noted Colorado has some of the highest numbers in terms of
national studies and surveys related to teen vaping, and resort
communities within Colorado have the highest numbers in the state.
He said the districts will file cases locally, and then those cases
will be transferred to federal court in San Francisco to be
litigated all together.
"What we are trying to obtain for your district are the resources
necessary to properly move forward" in addressing the problem,
Shinoff said.
Specifically, he said any funds awarded could be used to install
vaping detectors in school bathrooms as well as provide educational
programming. Shinoff said school bathrooms have become the most
popular place for students to vape.
The cost to install a device in a bathroom is approximately $5,000,
he said, which includes the detection device, Wi-Fi connectivity
and a camera outside the bathroom to determine who set it off.
Shinoff said early educational efforts -- especially starting in
middle school -- are showing to be effective in reducing the number
of kids who vape. And the intent is to provide money that will
support those educational programs for 10 to 15 years, he said.
The lawsuit also mentions the financial harm suffered by districts
in terms of resources devoted to disciplinary and counseling issues
around vaping, as well as vaping-related illnesses and students
missing school.
Districts face challenges in enforcing policies related to vaping,
according to Shinoff, due to "the discreet appearance of the
product, difficulty pinpointing the vapor or scent and the
addictive nature of the product."
Steamboat Springs School District Superintendent Brad Meeks noted
that school staff are frequently confiscating a wide variety of
different devices used by students for vaping.
In addition to the monetary component of the litigation, Shinoff
noted its "social justice aspect."
The goal, he described, is to get an injunction to prevent JUUL
from selling the flavored pods. He noted the company is under
investigation in regards to fraudulent advertising and targeting
kids, and he added that where JUUL has been banned from selling the
company has admitted to trying to re-enter the market because it is
so profitable.
Shinoff said the lawsuit would require minimal time from district
staff, and there is no cost for to the district to be involved. He
said the law firm operates on a 20% contingency if the lawsuit is
resolved within a year and 25% if resolution takes more than a
year.
Shinoff said he recently made presentations to the school districts
in Montrose and Telluride and that the Boulder district has signed
on.
He said more defendants are being identified, including retailers
and other vape pen manufacturers, though JUUL represents 84% of the
market, which makes the company the primary target of the lawsuit.
In 2017, JUUL generated over $224 million in retail sales, a 621%
year-over-year increase, according to Shinoff's presentation. By
June 2018, sales had skyrocketed another 783%, reaching $942.6
million.
Meeks said he saw no reason the district should not move forward
with the lawsuit.
"There is no to little risk involved, and the impact of JUUL and
vaping is very evident in our district," Meeks said. [GN]
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Files Cert. Petition in Senne FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., filed with
the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the matter styled KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP.,
et al., Petitioners, v. AARON SENNE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, et al., Respondents, Case No. 19-1339.
Response is due on July 6, 2020.
Petitioners Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., petition for
a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case titled AARON
SENNE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP., et
al., Case Nos. 17-16245, 17-16267, 17-16276, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals issued
its opinion on August 16, 2019, and denied rehearing en banc on
January 3, 2020.
The questions presented are: (1.) Whether Tyson sanctions the use
of statistical surveys to establish commonality and predominance
for a wage-and-hour class that encompasses different kinds of
employees performing different kinds of work for different
employers at different worksites under different compensation
terms; and (2.) Whether cohesiveness is required for class
certification under Rule 23(b)(2).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all
minor league baseball players employed by Major League Baseball or
any MLB franchise under the Minor League Uniform Player Contract.
The Plaintiffs contend that MLB's longstanding exemption from the
United States' antitrust laws allows it to openly collude on the
working conditions for the development of its chief commodity:
young baseball players. They allege that most minor leaguers earn
between around $3,000 and $7,500 for the entire year despite
routinely working over 50 hours per week (and sometimes 70 hours
per week) during the roughly five-month championship season.
However, the Plaintiffs assert, minor leaguers receive no overtime
pay, and instead routinely receive less than minimum wage during
the championship season.
The District Court denied certification of the eight state-law
classes and decertified the previously conditionally-certified FLSA
collective action. Starting with the (b)(3) classes, the court
concluded that a host of individualized issues--including, inter
alia, the determination of which of the players' activities
constitute compensable "work"; the amount of time each player spent
engaging in those activities; the nature and amount of each
player's compensation; the analysis of which state's law would
govern each player's claims; and the availability of certain
defenses--predominated over common issues. The District Court found
that these individualized issues pervaded all parts of the season,
from spring training in March through instructional leagues in
September.
The Ninth Circuit's decision to certify these sprawling
employment-law class actions not only departs substantially from
this Court's precedents, but squarely conflicts with decisions of
other circuits on the basic requirements of Rule 23. Thousands of
minor-league baseball players with different positions, employers,
and workplaces seek here to prove entitlement to additional
compensation principally through a survey that failed to reasonably
capture the amount of time any individual ballplayer spent on
compensable activities. Given that glaring deficiency, no
individual plaintiff could have relied on that evidence to
establish the length of his workday or to prove his entitlement to
additional compensation in an individual action. Yet the Ninth
Circuit nonetheless found no Rule 23 or Rules Enabling Act problem
with allowing these thousands of disparately situated individuals
to band together and proceed as a class on the basis of such
borderline-irrelevant representative evidence.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents Aaron Senne, et al., are represented by:
Robert L. King, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-4844
Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
E-mail: rking@koreintillery.com
Defendants-Petitioners KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP., et al.,
are represented by:
Paul D. Clement, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 389-5000
E-mail: paul.clement@kirkland.com
LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA: Sued for Not Giving Ticket Refunds
-------------------------------------------------------
Karla Rendon-Alvarez, writing for NBC San Diego, reports that
Legoland California Resort is being sued in a class-action lawsuit
for allegedly not giving refunds or adjusting memberships while it
was shut down during the coronavirus pandemic.
The complaint was filed on June 8 and claims the resort failed to
reimburse ticketholders during the time the theme park was closed.
The plaintiff is suing Legoland for a slew of charges that include:
violation of California's consumer legal remedies, false
advertising, unfair competition, breach of contract, money has a
received, negligence, fraud, conversion and unjust enrichment.
Legoland, along with other theme parks and attractions, shuttered
its doors in March as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. According
to the complaint, its plaintiff was "unable to get a refund" for
the tickets she purchased directly from Legoland on a date during
the park's closure.
"Closing of these venues, and cancellation of these events, should
have meant that ticketholders were promptly refunded their money --
money that in many cases, was very much needed for other
purposes."
The lawsuit is demanding a jury trial and seeks that all
individuals in the class action lawsuit are given refunds for
tickets, memberships and vacation packages that were scheduled on
dates that were unable to be attended.
Merlin Entertainments, Legoland's parent company, is also listed as
a defendant, along with Madame Russauds Hollywood and San
Francisco, and San Francisco Dungeon.
Merlin Entertainments' Head of Public Relations in North America,
Julie Estrada, said Legoland California is looking into the
matter.
"We are aware of the lawsuit and are taking appropriate legal
advice. The lawsuit will be vigorously defended," she said in a
statement.
Individuals who reside in the U.S. and have paid for tickets,
memberships or vacation packages from Legoland between March 13,
2016 and the applicable opt-out date are eligible to join the
class-action lawsuit. [GN]
LONOLIFE INC: Kiler Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lonolife, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marion
Kiler, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Lonolife, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02576 (E.D. N.Y., June 10, 2020).
LonoLife is the only single-serve bone broth powder on the
market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
LOS ANGELES POLICE: Sued by BLM-LA Over Mass Detention
------------------------------------------------------
City News Service reports that Black Lives Matter-LA filed a
lawsuit in federal court against the Los Angeles Police Department
and its chief, alleging that the recent mass detention of more than
2,600 peaceful protesters, held handcuffed on buses without access
to bathroom facilities, water or food, was a violation of rights
under the U.S. and California constitutions.
The proposed class-action complaint alleges excessive force and
civil rights violations against the so-called George Floyd
Solidarity protesters.
The suit seeks damages, declaratory, and injunctive relief on
behalf of a class of thousands of protesters who allegedly
sustained injuries by police and were subject to excessive
detention without access to bathrooms or medical care.
An LAPD spokesperson said the department has a policy of declining
comment on pending litigation.
According to BLM-LA, while protesters were peacefully engaged in
lawful First Amendment protests, "the LAPD used force to terminate
the protests, including the indiscriminate use of so-called 'less
lethal' weapons that caused injury."
The suit, also filed on behalf of the Los Angeles Community Action
Network and two of its members, alleges that the LAPD's use of
"kettling," a crowd-control tactic in which protesters were kept
"tightly handcuffed on buses for hours" -- without access to
bathrooms, food or water -- violated their civil rights.
The 23-page complaint contains the alleged accounts of protesters
detained in large groups during the protests.
Protesters said they were transported to LAPD jails around the
city. All were held on buses or off-loaded into garages and similar
facilities, where they were held handcuffed behind their backs,
protesters allege.
"All members of the arrest class were held in this manner for a
minimum of several hours, with some held more than 12 hours in
these excruciatingly painful conditions," the lawsuit contends.
"The class members experienced numbness in their hands and requests
to loosen the zip ties or remove them went unanswered. Without
access to bathrooms, arrestees were compelled to urinate on
themselves."
The complaint contends that LAPD's actions further "interfered with
BLM-LA's right to assembly and speech." The plaintiffs seek a court
order halting the "practices, policies, and customs" of the police
responding to future gatherings.
The proposed class would include at least 10,000 persons who were
allegedly "struck by so-called 'rubber bullets' and/or baton
strikes administered without lawful justification," contrary to
proper use, to inflict maximum injury, BLM-LA contends.
Kath Rogers, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild of
Los Angeles, said that at least 575 protesters have signed up with
her organization for criminal defense after they were arrested and
held "in terrible conditions." [GN]
LOUISIANA: Class Action Seeks Furlough Extension for Youth
----------------------------------------------------------
Katy Reckdahl, writing for Juvenile Justice, reports that as the
coronavirus filled up hospitals across Louisiana, three youth in
one dormitory at the Swanson Center for Youth in Monroe became
feverish. One spiked a fever high enough to feel cold and clammy,
said the youth identified in court records as "D.M." His
dormitory-mates went to the infirmary, were given Tylenol and told
to return to the infirmary if their symptoms worsened, he said.
For three days, U.S. District Judge John W. deGravelles used the
court's Zoom app to watch testimony for a lawsuit brought by the
national Juvenile Law Center, law firm O'Melveny & Myers and the
New Orleans public interest nonprofit The Promise of Justice
Initiative and its frequent collaborator, New Orleans defense
attorney John Adcock.
The potential class-action suit was brought on behalf of
incarcerated youth and their parents, who testified that the 220
youth in the custody of the Office of Juvenile Justice face
"irreparable injury" because OJJ is failing to address the spread
of COVID-19 in the state's four secure-care juvenile justice
facilities.
Attorneys for the state of Louisiana deny that claim, saying that
OJJ's "thoughtful and evolving response to COVID-19 is working."
Throughout the hearing, they maintained that stance: that the
agency had handled everything well and there was no need to adjust
its approach.
After getting final briefs, DeGravelles will decide whether the
danger that COVID-19 poses to the youth in OJJ's custody is great
enough to grant a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the
agency, to allow more youth to go home on extended furloughs. That
would particularly apply to teens with six months or less left in
their sentence, those who have contracted COVID-19 and those who
suffer from underlying conditions like asthma, who are more likely
to have a worse reaction to the virus.
Early in the pandemic, a few scattered jurisdictions did release
hundreds of youth. But Louisiana, like most states, released very
few. This lawsuit, and a similar one that the Juvenile Law Center
filed in Pennsylvania, are being watched closely by juvenile
advocates in other states that have also seen few releases despite
high levels of infection.
Plaintiffs argued that keeping youth in custody while
rehabilitative programming has been suspended violates their
constitutional rights. "Unlike adults in prisons, children are not
confined for the purpose of punishment; the Louisiana Constitution
explicitly provides that children in OJJ custody are confined
solely for the purpose of receiving 'rehabilitation and individual
treatment,'" the plaintiffs' motion for the TRO hearing says.
Staff considerations
Marsha Levick, Juvenile Law Center's chief legal officer, argued in
her opening statement that the court must take into consideration
"the heightened protections that are owed to adolescents" by a
series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that find adolescents to be
different from adults.
In Louisiana, OJJ confines youth under the very premise that their
behavior can be changed through education and positive programming.
"We can hardly ask this court to ignore the dire public-health
crisis that we are all confronting," Levick said, "but we cannot
allow the urgency of the pandemic to erase our clients' fundamental
14th Amendment rights to treatment and rehabilitation."
Sending some youths home would accomplish two goals: It would allow
for more social distancing in OJJ facilities and would also make
sense for facilities juggling reduced staff because of COVID spread
among employees, said Vincent Schiraldi, who ran juvenile justice
programs in New York City and Washington, D.C., and now is a senior
research scientist at the Columbia School of Social Work and
co-director of the Columbia Justice Lab.
"You want fewer kids, so staff can manage the kids they have," he
testified, noting that OJJ accommodated its COVID-positive staff,
trained to work with children, by bringing in Department of
Corrections staff, who lacked that training. "Unless you can
manufacture trained staff in the basement, the only way to maintain
staff-kid ratios is to have fewer kids," he said.
Other experts testified that tapping into the state's existing
furlough program made sense because it's a fairly simple
administrative process: OJJ requests furloughs based on a youth's
conduct and other factors and sends the recommendations to local
judges for approval. The only other way youth can be released is
for each judge to open each individual case and make sentencing
modifications, a more cumbersome process.
Though OJJ's inaction is similar to the inaction seen at adult
facilities across the nation, the solutions put forward in the
hearings make clear that Louisiana's juvenile systems has the
potential to react differently because it went through intensive
reforms 17 years ago, when the state created OJJ as a separate
entity designed to rehabilitate youth, with a clear division from
the adult prison system. OJJ's regular and well-used furlough
program, staff trained in youth behavior, dormitories that hold 12
youth instead of 100, even unimplemented plans that could help
combat an epidemic — all of those aspects are in place because of
the reforms of 2003.
For some, the hearing shows the fragility of those reforms and the
associated statutory framework. "The depopulation mechanisms exist
because state law recognizes that children should be returned to
their families and communities as soon as they are ready. But OJJ
is not using these mechanisms at a time when they are also critical
to public health. OJJ is actually arguing that they cannot use
them," said Rachel Gassert, policy director at the Louisiana Center
for Children's Rights, which is not a party to the lawsuit but has
been involved in the issue because its lawyers have filed
modifications on behalf of incarcerated youth.
Positive youth put in solitary
Among other demands, in the motion for the hearing, plaintiffs'
attorneys asked DeGravelles to weigh in on OJJ's failure to test
youth for the past two months and to restart the educational and
rehabilitative programming suspended on March 27. The latter point,
however, may be moot as the state steps into Phase 2 of reopening,
relaxing many virus prevention strategies. Some youth testified
about a few classes that had restarted prior to the hearing.
At the hearing, parents told the judge they were worried about some
OJJ practices, like sending feverish youth back into crowded
dormitories, because the coronavirus is highly contagious,
especially in a correctional setting.
OJJ's practice of placing COVID-positive youth in solitary
confinement disciplinary cells also likely reduced the number of
youth who voluntarily reported symptoms.
D.M. himself never had a fever. "I had a sore throat and stuff," he
told the judge. That is now considered a possible symptom of
coronavirus. But D.M. was never tested, because he didn't have a
fever. In the early days of the pandemic, in March and April,
people without fevers often weren't tested in Louisiana.
Still, even with OJJ's high bar for testing, seven youth and three
staffers had tested positive by early April at the Bridge City
Center for Youth, another OJJ facility. At that time, that was a
far higher number of cases than at any other juvenile justice
facility in the nation. Plus, OJJ had an extremely high rate of
positive cases: 28 of 30 youth tested were positive.
There's no current data on COVID-positive youth in OJJ's facilities
since the agency stopped testing youth on April 12. OJJ
administrators told the judge there was no need to test anyone
since then; no one has had symptoms, they say.
But three experts who testified for the plaintiffs found that
conclusion unlikely. "I'm concerned because staff doesn't always
tell the truth and kids don't always tell you that they're sick,"
Schiraldi said. [GN]
LUCKIN COFFEE: Faces Kimson Securities Suit Over ADR Shares Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMSON CHEMICAL, INC., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. LUCKIN COFFEE INC., CHARLES ZHENGYAO LU,
JENNY ZHIYA QIAN, JIAN LIU, REINOUT HENDRIK SCHAKEL, HUI LI, JINYI
GUO, ERHAI LIU, SEAN SHAO, THOMAS P. MEIER, NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC,
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORP., HONG
KONG SECURITIES LTD., HAITONG INT'L SECURITIES CO. LTD., CREDIT
SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, and KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., Case
No. 651939/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., May 26, 2020), is
brought under the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of
Luckin securities, who purchased American Depositary Receipt
Shares, in connection with or traceable to the Company's Initial
Public Offering on May 17, 2019, or in connection with or traceable
to the Company's Secondary Offering on January 10, 2020.
The Defendants allegedly issued negligently prepared and materially
false and misleading Registration Statements and Prospectuses in
connection with the IPO and Secondary Offering. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Registration Statements and Prospectuses contained
untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and/or was not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
their preparation.
On April 2, 2020, the Company announced that an internal
investigation had found that millions of dollars in sales were
fabricated by executives dating back to the second quarter of 2019.
Following this news, the Company's ADS shares plummeted $19.80 per
ADS or approximately 75.6% to close at $6.40 on April 2, 2020.
The Plaintiff purchased Luckin securities in connection with or
traceable to the IPO.
Luckin purports to engage in the retail sale of freshly brewed
drinks, and premade food and beverage items in the People's
Republic of China. The Company offers freshly brewed drinks,
including freshly brewed coffee and non-coffee drinks; and food and
beverage items, such as light meals. The Individual Defendants are
directors of the Company.
Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, and China International Capital
Corporation are financial services companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Harrison, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 281-8988
E-mail: dharrison@lowey.com
- and -
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
Two Seaport Lane
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
astewart@shulaw.com
- and -
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
wjonckheer@sjk.law
nschubert@sjk.law
MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ: Litton Suit Transferred to Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joseph Litton and Deidre Litton, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann PC, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Defendant, was transferred from the
Pulaski County Circuit Court with the assigned Case No.
60cv-20-02922 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas (Central Division) on June 10, 2020, and assigned Case
No. 4:20-cv-00730-DPM.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Real Property:
Other.
Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C. provided comprehensive legal
services to the mortgage banking and financial services industries
through quality, timely, efficient and ethical practices.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joel G. Hargis, Esq.
Hargis Law Office
512 West Washington Avenue
Jonesboro, AR 72401
Tel: (870) 336-6407
Email: joel@hargislawoffice.com
- and -
William G. Horton
Caddell Reynolds
211 North Second Street
Rogers, AR 72756
Tel: (479) 464-8269
Email: bhorton@justicetoday.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew King, Esq.
Kutak Rock LLP
124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
Little Rock, AR 72201-3740
Tel: (501) 975-3142
Fax: (501) 975-3001
Email: andrew.king@kutakrock.com
- and -
David L. Williams, Esq.
Kutak Rock LLP
124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
Little Rock, AR 72201-3740
Tel: (501) 975-3109
Fax: (501) 975-3001
Email: david.williams@kutakrock.com
MAINE: Judge Denies First Motion in Prison Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Megan Gray, writing for Press Herald, reports that a federal judge
has denied the first motion in a lawsuit by inmates over the Maine
Department of Corrections' pandemic response, but the case will
still move forward.
U.S. District Judge John Woodcock wrote in his order that he could
not take immediate action because the parties have too many
disputes about the facts of the case. He said the court would
schedule a phone conference to discuss another pending motion and
the next steps.
"The order these individuals seek would fundamentally alter central
details of the Department's COVID-19 response," Woodcock wrote.
"Because the Court believes that significant unresolved factual
disputes preclude a finding that the incarcerated individuals have
established a likelihood of success on the merits for their claims
or that they have established a likelihood of irreparable harm in
the absence of injunctive relief, the Court denies temporary
injunctive relief."
He also suggested the need for action was not immediate because
Maine prisons have so far been spared the widespread outbreaks that
other states have experienced. One employee at Bolduc Correctional
Facility in Warren tested positive for the disease in March, and
four inmates at the Maine Correctional Center in Windham tested
positive in May. The adult prison population as of June 8 was
1,850.
"Given the relatively low number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in
MDOC facilities and what the Court expects will be a rapid
resolution of the request for a preliminary injunction, the Court
does not see the need for temporary injunctive relief at this
time," Woodcock wrote.
The plaintiffs are Joseph Denbow and Sean Ragsdale, who are both
incarcerated at Mountain View Correctional Facility in Charleston.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Maine is representing them
and seeking class-action status for hundred of other inmates,
especially those who are medically vulnerable to the coronavirus.
The lawsuit includes a May email from a correction official, who
wrote that 925 inmates have underlying medical conditions.
The plaintiffs have argued that the state is not doing enough to
release incarcerated people who are at risk during the pandemic,
and the prisons are unable to allow for physical distancing to
prevent the spread of the virus. They have asked the judge to take
certain immediate steps, like ordering the department to review all
medically vulnerable inmates for furlough or instituting universal
testing in certain prisons.
The state has argued that the Maine Department of Corrections is
reviewing inmates for its home confinement program and taking other
steps to prevent the spread of disease inside prisons. They have
also said the inmates have other opportunities to pursue release
outside of federal court.
The judge held a hearing last week on a motion for a temporary
restraining order, which is an immediate and short-term form of
relief in federal court. He denied that motion on June 8 but did
not make significant findings on the facts of the case. The
plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which
will require another hearing. Woodcock wrote that he would proceed
quickly to deal with that motion.
"Both sides, in other words, have painted quite different pictures
of what is happening behind the walls of MDOC facilities," he wrote
at one point. "At this juncture, the Court has no reason to credit
one picture over the other."
Woodcock has also suggested that the parties consider mediation.
[GN]
MERRILL LYNCH: Class Action Claim vs. Sweep Program Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mason Braswell, writing for Advisor Hub, reports that Merrill Lynch
has defeated a putative class action lawsuit from a client who
claimed it failed to make proper disclosures about cash sweeps from
Merrill Edge brokerage accounts into low-yield Bank of America
deposit accounts.
Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York granted
Merrill's motion to dismiss after finding that disclosures about
its cash sweep policies and rates via hyperlinks in online account
opening agreements were "sufficiently conspicuous." Although the
terms were "lengthy and must be reached by hyperlink," the section
detailing the sweep program was boldfaced and in a distinctive
color font, Caproni noted.
"An individual's failure to read the terms of a clickwrap
agreement, even if they are only available through a hyperlink,
does not render the agreement unenforceable," Caproni wrote.
Any attempt by the investor, Sarah Valelly, to revive and refile
breach of contract claims would be futile although she can do so by
focusing on suitability violations and negligence, she ruled.
Robert C. Finkel, a New York-based lawyer with Wolf Popper who
represents Valelly, said he could not immediately comment on
whether his client will refile or appeal the decision.
Valelly, who opened her accounts in 2017 in Boston, accused Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, the broker-dealer for Merrill Wealth
and Merrill Edge customers, of breach of contract as well as
violations of industry suitability rules and negligence. She argued
that disclosures on the cash sweep programs, which paid a "paltry"
0.05% to 0.14% annual percentage yield, were "buried" in
"voluminous" PDF files.
She put $675,000 into an "unsuitable, low-interest bearing" Bank of
America account and was underpaid approximately $22,400 in
interest, based on offers at rival banks, she alleged in the
initial August 2019 complaint.
The judge said Valelly would have a difficult time pressing a
suitability argument because there is no private right of action
over the industry standard. She also wrote that suitability does
not appear to apply to a self-directed investor who by definition
is not receiving investment advice.
In its response to the initial lawsuit, Merrill said that Valelly's
citation of unreasonably low rates was misleading because she was
comparing the return on her bank deposit accounts to those on money
market funds, which are "an entirely distinct investment option."
Valelly had sought to represent three classes of Merrill customers:
brokerage account investors whose cash was defaulted into Merrill's
direct deposit sweep account since March 2014; retirement account
investors whose client relationship agreements allegedly require
them to be paid "reasonable rates"; and customers who were advised
by an "account representative" to deposit more than $25,000 into a
Bank of America low-interest deposit or checking account for at
least 30 days. [GN]
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: ACLU Sues to Defend Press Freedom at Protests
--------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of journalists who were targeted and
attacked by Minneapolis and Minnesota police while covering
protests over the killing of George Floyd. The lawsuit was filed
against the city of Minneapolis, the Minnesota State Patrol, and
the Minneapolis police.
"The power of the people is rooted in the ability of the free press
to investigate and report news, especially at a time like this when
police have brutally murdered one of our community members," said
ACLU-MN Legal Director Teresa Nelson. "Police are using violence
and threats to undermine that power, and we cannot let that happen.
Public transparency is absolutely necessary for police
accountability."
The lawsuit's lead plaintiff, Jared Goyette, a journalist covering
the demonstrations, was shot in the face with a rubber bullet. He
repeatedly warned the police that he was a member of the media
there to cover the demonstrations.
"Journalists aren't the only victims," said Goyette. "Actions like
this make protesters, people trying to advocate for change, more
vulnerable because journalists provide a witness and police are
aware of that. Without journalists there, police or other people in
power can feel a sense of impunity that no one will see what's
happening anyway. Everyone needs to know people are watching."
Attacks by law enforcement against members of the press have
escalated in recent days. In Minnesota alone, police have fired
rubber bullets at journalists, blinding one in the eye; tear-gassed
them; pepper-sprayed them in the face; and thrown flash grenades
directly at them. Police have also arrested numerous journalists.
Similar attacks have been reported across the country.
"We are facing a full-scale assault on the First Amendment freedom
of the press," said Brian Hauss, staff attorney with the ACLU'
Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "We will not let these
official abuses go unanswered. This is the first of many lawsuits
the ACLU intends to file across the country. Law enforcement
officers who target journalists will be held accountable."
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota. It seeks an order declaring law enforcement's actions
unconstitutional and prohibiting them from targeting and attacking
journalists again. The lawsuit also seeks damages for injuries
sustained.
The suit was filed by the ACLU of Minnesota, Fredrikson & Byron
P.A. and Apollo Law LLC.
The complaint is at
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/goyette-v-city-minneapolis.
[GN]
MVP STAFFING: Averts Racial Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Maeve Allsup, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that MVP Staffing,
an Illinois staffing agency, avoided another class action suit on
June 8 when a federal district court ruled the named plaintiffs
were inadequate class representatives.
The proposed class of black applicants said they weren't given
assignments, or were not selected for work at client companies
because of racial bias. Client companies and MVP discriminated
against black applicants in favor of Latino applicants, the
complaint said.
Other suits, also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, alleged MVP acted on client companies'
preferences in excluding black applicants from temporary work
assignments. [GN]
MYERS & SONS: Faces Toy Employment Suit in California Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Myers & Sons
Construction LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Nicholas B. Toy,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Myers &
Sons Construction LLC; Myers & Sons LP; and Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2020-00279448-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 26,
2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.
Myers & Sons is a heavy civil construction company based in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
Telephone: (310) 975-1493
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
- and -
Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
Telephone: (818) 456-6168
E-mail: josh@falakassalaw.com
NORTH CAROLINA: Hallinan Questions Inmates' Safety From COVID-19
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES HALLINAN, JOSEAN KINARD, ARNOLD J. HILL, BENJAMIN D. MCRAE,
JOHN DAILEY, LEE M. AYERS, GEORGE B. RIDDICK, JORGE LUIS MALDONADO,
ANTWAN HARRIS, ANTHONY BUTLER, and TROY A. TITUS, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated individuals v. THOMAS SCARANTINO,
Complex Warden, Federal Correctional Complex Butner; MICHAEL
CARVAJAL, Federal Bureau of Prisons Director; and JEFFERY ALLEN,
Federal Bureau of Prisons Medical Director, in their official
capacities, Case No. 5:20-hc-02088-FL (E.D.N.C., May 26, 2020),
concerns an urgent crisis at FCC Butner, which unreasonably
threatens the life, health, and safety of incarcerated people and
staff because of inadequate measures within the facility to control
the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.
Even as North Carolina takes tentative steps to reopen, the dangers
posed to the medically vulnerable and elderly, particularly in
institutional settings, show no sign of abating, according to the
complaint. Hundreds of incarcerated people and staff have been
infected and eight people housed at Butner have already died from
COVID-19. SARS-nCoV-2 continues to spread actively through Butner's
population, endangering the lives of incarcerated people and staff,
who work with them.
The Plaintiffs contend that the complex was designed to hold no
more than 3,998 people, meaning it is currently at approximately
111 percent of its maximum designed capacity. Thus, the Plaintiffs
say, Butner is overcrowded, making it impossible to adequately
physically distance people and contain the spread of COVID-19
without reducing the population of men incarcerated there.
The Plaintiffs are inmates of the FCC Butner facility.
The FCC Butner is a United States federal prison complex for men in
Butner, North Carolina. FCC Butner is operated by the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of
Justice. FCC Butner is about 25 miles northwest of Raleigh, the
state capital.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey S. Wilkerson, Esq.
Gretchen Scavo, Esq.
Elizabeth Ireland, Esq.
Patrick Doerr, Esq.
Ashley R. Anderson, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
300 South Tryon Street, 16th Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 350-7700
Facsimile: (704) 350-7800
E-mail: jwilkerson@winston.com
gscavo@winston.com
eireland@winston.com
pdoerr@winston.com
aanderson@winston.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Smith, Esq.
Emily Gunston, Esq.
Lyndsay A. Niles, Esq.
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS
700 14th Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 319-1000
Facsimile: (202) 319-1010
E-mail: jonathan_smith@washlaw.org
emily_gunston@washlaw.org
lyndsay_niles@washlaw.org
- and -
Maria V. Morris, Esq.
Sarah Hinger, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
915 15th Street N.W., 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 548-6607
E-mail: mmorris@aclu.org
shinger@aclu.org
- and -
Emily Seawell, Esq.
Jaclyn Maffetore, Esq.
Kristi Graunke, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA
LEGAL FOUNDATION
Post Office Box 28004
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: (919) 834-3466
Facsimile: (866) 511-1344
E-mail: eseawell@acluofnc.org
jmaffetore@acluofnc.org
kgraunke@acluofnc.org
PRETTYLITTLETHING.COM USA: Hilton Sues Over Deceptive Sale Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAYA HILTON, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. PRETTYLITTLETHING.COM USA INC., a Delaware
corporation, BOOHOO GROUP PLC, a United Kingdom public limited
company, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-04658-DMG-AGR
(C.D. Cal., May 26, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
their false and deceptive pricing practices in connection with
their sale of "PrettyLittleThing" clothing, accessories and other
items on their U.S. Web site, https://www.prettylittlething.us/.
According to the complaint, PLT does so by advertising fake and
inflated original prices to deceive customers into a false belief
that the sale price is a deeply discounted bargain price. This is
deception because that item of clothing has rarely, if ever, been
sold in the recent past on the site for $40.
Because PLT's Web site is the only channel through which
"PrettyLittleThing" clothing is sold, the Defendants cannot
justifiably claim that another retailer has sold that dress for
$40, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result, customers are deceived
into spending money they otherwise would not have, purchasing items
they otherwise would not have, and/or spending more money for an
item than they otherwise would have absent the deceptive marketing,
she adds.
PLT launched in 2012 and is in the business of marketing and
selling "PrettyLittleThing" clothing and accessories on the
Internet. The Defendants exclusively sell their clothing and
accessories online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yasin M. Almadani, Esq.
ALMADANI LAW
14742 Beach Blvd., Suite 410
La Mirada, CA 90638
Telephone: 213-335-3935
Facsimile: 213-296-6278
E-mail: yma@lawalm.com
- and -
Ahmed Ibrahim, Esq.
AI LAW, PLC
4343 Von Karman Ave., Suite 250
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: 949-260-1240
Facsimile: 949-260-1280
E-mail: aibrahim@ailawfirm.com
QBE: Faces Business Interruption Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Insurance News reports that law firm Mishcon de Reya has lined up
funding for a UK dentists business interruption class action
against QBE, after also flagging plans to pursue the insurer on
behalf of the hospitality industry.
The firm says it has received in-principle agreement from an
"experienced litigation funder" and has called on dental practice
owners to express interest by Friday next week in joining the
potential claim.
"The issue for dentists is similar in many ways to that experienced
by the other businesses whom we also advise," Partner and Head of
the Insurance Disputes Practice Sonia Campbell --
sonia.campbell@mishcon.com -- said.
"Dental practice owners responsibly insured themselves against the
risk of financial losses, including from notifiable diseases and
yet, just like those in other trades, soon learned that their
claims have been rejected."
The firm is separately pursuing QBE and London-based Aviva in a
Hospitality Insurance Group Action (HIGA), calling last month for
businesses to register their interest by last Friday.
Mishcon de Reya narrowed its hospitality focus to the companies
after a review of more than 500 policies from a range of insurers.
Policies were submitted by businesses whose cover was declined
after they were hit by Government-mandated lockdowns to control the
COVID-19 outbreak.
"We believe this is the best way to ensure some financial
recompense for these policyholders following their sudden and
enforced closure," Ms Campbell said.
Mishcon de Reya is working with Jeffrey Gruder QC of Essex Court
Chambers on the proposed cases.
QBE, which has declined to comment on the class actions, is one of
eight insurers that will participate in a Financial Conduct
Authority test case over business interruption policy wordings.
The insurer has advised the market its BI policies do not typically
cover losses arising from COVID-19, but it has noted, in response
to queries, that reinsurance would limit net UK claims cost to
$US75 million ($107 million). [GN]
RADIO SYSTEMS CORP: Kiler Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Radio Systems Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marion Kiler, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Radio Systems
Corporation doing business as: Petsafe, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-02575 (E.D. N.Y., June 10, 2020).
Radio Systems Corporation, doing business as PetSafe, manufactures
and retails pet supplies and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
RED WING BRANDS: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
Red Wing Brands of America, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Red Wing Brands of America, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04426 (S.D. N.Y., June 10, 2020).
Red Wing Brands of America, Inc. provides footwear and accessories
online. The Company offers shoes, gloves, leather belts, coasters,
socks, and footbeds. Red Wing Brands of America serves customers
worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
S-L DISTRIBUTION: Vrabac Suit Transferred to Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Arnes Vrabac and Paul Rocco, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. S-L
Distribution Company, LLC, Defendant, was transferred from the
District of Connecticut with the assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00429 to
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania (Harrisburg) on June 10, 2020, and assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00937-JEJ.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed over Diversity-Breach of Contract.
S-L Distribution Company, Inc. produces and distributes food
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary L Rubin, Esq.
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, PC
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
Email: zrubin@llrlaw.com
SANDIA LABORATORY: Rader Files Suit in New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sandia Laboratory
Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Jenny Rader, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sandia
Laboratory Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00559
(D.N.M., June 9, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to the Breach of Contract.
Sandia Laboratory Federal Credit Union provides banking
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J Rael, Jr, Esq.
Robles, Rael & Anaya, PC
500 Marquette NW, Ste. 700
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Tel: (505) 242-2228
Fax: (505) 242-1106
Email: marcus@roblesrael.com
SCWORX CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of June 29 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in SCWorx Corp. (NASDAQ: WORX) ("SCWorx" or the
"Company") of the June 29, 2020 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.
If you invested in SCWorx stock or options between April 13, 2020
and April 17, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights,
click here:www.faruqilaw.com/WORX. There is no cost or obligation
to you.
You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll freeat
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail
torgonnello@faruqilaw.com.
CONTACT:
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased
SCWorx securities between April 13, 2020 and April 17, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). The case, Yannes v. SCWorx Corp. et al. was filed
on April 29, 2020.
The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading
statements and/or failing to disclose: (1) that SCWorx's supplier
for COVID-19 tests had previously misrepresented its operations;
(2) that SCWorx's buyer was a small company that was unlikely to
adequately support the purported volume of orders for COVID-19
tests; (3) that, as a result, the Company's purchase order for
COVID-19 tests had been overstated or entirely fabricated; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On April 13, 2020, before the market opened, SCWorx announced that
it had received a committed purchase order of two million COVID-19
rapid testing kits, "with provision for additional weekly orders of
2 million units for 23 weeks, valued at $35M per week."
On this news, the Company's share price increased by $9.77, to
close at $12.02 per share on April 13, 2020.
On April 17, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report doubting the
validity of the deal, calling it "completely bogus." Hindenburg
Research alleged that the COVID-19 test supplier that SCWorx is
buying from, Promedical, has a Chief Executive Officer "who
formerly ran another business accused of defrauding its investors
and customers" and "was also alleged to have falsified his medical
credentials." According to the report, Promedical claimed to the
FDA and regulators in Australia to be offering COVID-19 test kits
manufactured by Wondfo, but Wondfo "disavowed any relationship" and
the buyer that SCWorx claimed to have lined up does not appear to
be "capable of handling hundreds of millions of dollars in
orders."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell, over the following
three trading sessions, from $6.95 per share on April 16, 2020 to
$5.76 on April 21, 2020: a $1.19 or 17.12% drop.
On April 22, 2020, the SEC halted trading of the Company's stock.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding SCWorx's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
SNHU: Awlia Seeks Tuition Fee Refund Due to COVID-19
----------------------------------------------------
JUMANAH AWLIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00609 (D.N.H., May 19, 2020) is a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all people who paid tuition and fees
for the Spring 2020 academic semester at Southern New Hampshire
University ("SNHU"), and who, because of 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 services
for which their fees paid, without having their tuition and fees
refunded to them.
On March 11, 2020, SNHU, via press release, announced that because
of the global COVID-19 pandemic, beginning March 16, the first day
back from Spring Break, all classes would be held online through
March 29. SNHU ultimately extended its cancellation of in-person
classes for the duration of the Spring 2020 Semester.
The Defendant has not held any in-person classes since March 6,
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 Defendant's facilities, Defendant has
not delivered the educational services, facilities, access and/or
opportunities that Ms. Awlia and the putative class contracted and
paid for. The online learning options being offered to SNHU
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 Plaintiff and the putative class members contracted and paid
for.
Plaintiff and the putative class are therefore entitled to a refund
of tuition and fees for in-person educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that Defendant has not provided. Even
if Defendant did not have a choice in canceling in-person classes,
it nevertheless has improperly retained funds for services it is
not providing.
Southern New Hampshire University is a private university with an
enrollment of over 90,000 students. SNHU offers approximately 50
formal major fields for undergraduate students, as well as a number
of graduate programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin T. King, Esq.
DOUGLAS, LEONARD & GARVEY, P.C.
14 South Street, Suite 5
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: (603) 224-1988
Email: benjamin@nhlawoffice.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
- and -
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
SOLVAY SPECIALTY: Faces Class Action Over Water Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Cedar, LLC on June 8 disclosed that the owners of four
homes in the Borough of National Park have filed a class-action
lawsuit charging companies associated with a West Deptford chemical
facility with polluting the municipal wells that supply them their
drinking water. The complaint, Severa, et al. v. Solvay Specialty
Polymers, USA, LLC, et al. alleges that between 1988 and 2010, the
operators of the plant at 10 Leonard Lane in West Deptford
improperly released hundreds of metric tons of the toxic compound
Perfluorononanoic acid, known as PFNA into the surrounding soil,
air and groundwater.
PFNA is one of a family of "forever chemicals" that have recently
come to the forefront of public and regulatory attention. Arkema,
Inc. owned the facility until 2000 when it sold it to a corporate
predecessor of Solvay, which currently operates it. PFNA was used
at the West Deptford site in the manufacture of specialized, heat
and abrasion-resistant plastics with many industrial applications.
At one time, the plant was the second-highest user of PFNA In the
world.
PFNA does not degrade regularly in the environment and has been
associated with several toxic and immunological effects in humans.
The State of New Jersey has established a "maximum contaminant
level" of 13 parts per trillion in drinking water for the chemical.
The state's Department of Environmental Protection has issued a
directive requiring Solvay to address widespread contamination of
PFNA and related chemicals throughout the region.
Since the second quarter of 2019, PFNA has been detected in
National Park's municipal water in excess of the MCL. The Borough
has notified residents of the findings and recommended the purchase
of filtration systems to remove the contaminant.
The class action complaint demands damages for residents' loss of
property value, their loss of the "quiet enjoyment" of their
properties, and the costs of remediation, including filters. It
also seeks to compel defendants to remediate the contamination and
to fund a biomonitoring program to assess the levels and effects of
PFNA in their bodies.
Plaintiffs are represented by the Haddonfield law firm, Williams
Cedar, LLC. David Cedar Esq., a partner in the firm said: "The more
we learn about PFNA and its chemical cousins, the more concerned we
should be about their irresponsible handling by large corporations
and the not coincidental, lax federal oversight that went on for
decades. This lawsuit is intended to take another step in holding
responsible parties accountable for the misuse of these dangerous
materials."
With an impressive track record of successfully representing
individuals and communities who have been exposed to toxic
chemicals, Williams Cedar continues to fight for victims whose
water, soil, air, or work environment has become polluted by
harmful chemicals. The dedicated and tenacious legal team has a
reputation for winning landmark cases that recover sizable
financial compensation for clients who have suffered from serious,
life-threatening health conditions due to exposure to toxic
chemicals.
A copy of the Class-Action Complaint is available at:
https://is.gd/LKTcIa
David Cedar, ESQ
Williams Cedar, LLC
+1 856-470-9777
[GN]
SOUTHERN PINE: Harper Appeals S.D. Miss. Ruling to Fifth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kimberly Harper, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated March 4, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit styled Kimberly Harper, et al. v. Southern
Pine Electric Coop, Case No. 2:18-CV-31, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, members of
rural power cooperative allege that the cooperative have failed to
refund excess "patronage capital" to their members as required by
state law. They request a refund of capital above a specific ratio
of equity to assets established in the cooperative' agreements with
the federal Rural Utilities Service, and the appointment of a
trustee or receiver to oversee the repayment process.
The appellate case is captioned as Kimberly Harper, et al. v.
Southern Pine Electric Coop, Case No. 20-60451, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants KIMBERLY HARPER, MIRANDA PARROTT, ROY ALLEN,
SHENNETTA DRAUGHN, FORREST W. MASSA, JR., CAREY STEWART, and
CYNTHIA C. KELLY are represented by:
Brannon Lee Berry, Esq.
COSMICH, SIMMONS & BROWN, P.L.L.C.
100 Vision Drive, One Eastover Center
Jackson, MS 39211
Telephone: (601) 519-0328
E-mail: brannon.berry@cs-law.com
Defendant-Appellee SOUTHERN PINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE is
represented by:
Sherrill Wayne Easterling, Esq.
P.O. Box 1471
Hattiesburg, MS 39403
Telephone: (601) 544-8900
E-mail: easterlinglaw@aol.com
- and -
Robert M. Gore, Esq.
Christina M. Schwing, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, L.L.P.
50 N. Laura Street
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 353-2000
E-mail: robert.gore@hklaw.com
chris.schwing@hklaw.com
STUMPTOWN COFFEE: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stumptown Coffee Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Stumptown Coffee
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02573 (E.D. N.Y., June 10,
2020).
Stumptown Coffee is a coffee roaster and retailer based in
Portland, Oregon, United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
SUMMIT CAPITAL: Faces Naiman TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN AND KEITH HOBBS individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SUMMIT CAPITAL FUNDING LLC and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 3:20-cv-03530-JCS
(N.D. Cal., May 26, 2020), alleges that the Company promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited telephone
calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Beginning April 2018, the Company contacted the Plaintiffs'
cellular telephone numbers in an attempt to solicit the Plaintiffs
to purchase its services. The Defendant did not possess the
Plaintiffs' prior express consent to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice on their cellular telephones, says the complaint.
Summit Capital is private money lender headquartered in Flemington,
New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
Telephone: 323-306-4234
Facsimile: 866-633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
SURF OR SOUND REALTY: Hit With Class Action Over Denied Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Pugh, writing for OBXToday.com, reports that attorneys filed a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of vacation-home renters denied
refunds from Surf or Sound Realty after they were unable to come to
the Outer Banks due to coronavirus-related bridge closures.
In a statement, the Law Office of James Scott Farrin in Greenville
said Surf or Sound Realty originally told vacation customers they
would receive either a full refund or the choice of an alternate
week for the same price as their deposits and payments. Vacationers
were shut out of the Outer Banks from March 17 to May 16 due to the
coronavirus pandemic.
In May, the realty company reversed the refund decision and told
would-be vacationers they wouldn't be getting their money back
after all. The company offered alternative weeks instead.
Primis Player Placeholder
That decision was based on the opinion of Lloyd C. Smith Jr., an
attorney hired to represent Surf or Sound Realty. Smith contends
that paying refunds shouldn't fall on realty companies and
homeowners, but instead Dare County and the Outer Banks' town
governments. He said the offers of alternative weeks is a fair
compromise.
Smith himself is representing non-resident Outer Banks property
owners in their own class-action lawsuit, this one against Dare
County and the towns of Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, Kill
Devil Hills, Nags Head and Manteo.
The suit in the U.S. District Court of Eastern North Carolina
claims the closure of Dare County amounted to an illegal seizure of
out-of-town owners' property in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The suit is asking for Dare County and town governments to pay
rental loss and other expenses for out-of-town property owners who
were also kept from their vacation homes.
Any owners who use Surf or Sound for vacation-rental management
will automatically be added to the class-action lawsuit unless they
opt out, according to a letter the realty company sent to
homeowners.
"This is a simple case of insisting that a company do what's right
and fair by its customers," attorney Gary Jackson said. "People
invested in a vacation getaway at one of the most beautiful places
in the world. They trusted Surf and Sound, which made assurances,
then tried to change the rules. They can't do that. And now, they
need to make their customers whole."
In more than 80 emails sent from Surf or Sound April and May rental
customers to OBXToday.com, people from all over the country – as
well as Canada and the United Kingdom – detailed losing deposits
ranging from $1,200 to more than $6,000.
They also told stories of lost weddings, family reunions and other
meaningful getaways, now with no funds to replace the experience.
Rebecca and Cassius Lawrence were coming from Lawrenceville,
Georgia for time with lifelong friends because Cassius is
terminally ill with stage four cancer, his wife said.
"Rebooking for next year is not really an acceptable option for us
for obvious reasons of his health," Rebecca Lawrence said. "I hope
that you will be able to make our voices heard and that Surf or
Sound will do what is morally and legally the right thing to do."
Ryan Leather of Hagerstown, Maryland was coming down for a "guys'
fishing trip" in early April with a group of first responders.
Brian and Jennifer McPhillips were coming with family from Liberty,
New York, as a "last hurrah for the kids in the family." The
weeklong vacation was to be the kids' reward from graduating from
high school or college.
Dozens of Surf or Sound renters have also filed complaints with the
Better Business Bureau, the North Carolina Attorney General's
Office and the North Carolina Real Estate Commission, which issued
an opinion earlier this year that vacation property owners are
legally bound to return funds for lessees who couldn't access
vacation homes.
To speak with an attorney associated with the class-action suit,
call Gary Jackson or Chris Bagley at 1-866-900-7078. [GN]
SUTTELL & HAMMER: Bjornsdotter Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Anna Bjornsdotter filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Anna Bjornsdotter v. Suttell & Hammer, P.S., et
al., Case No. 6:18-cv-02079-MC, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, Eugene.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Anna Bjornsdotter v. Suttell &
Hammer, P.S., et al., Case No. 20-35503, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript shall be ordered by July 6, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on August 5, 2020;
-- Appellant Anna M. Bjornsdotter's opening brief is due on
September 14, 2020;
-- Appellees Patrick J. Layman and Suttell & Hammer, P.S.'s
answering brief is due on October 14, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ANNA M. BJORNSDOTTER, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Bret Knewtson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BRET KNEWTSON
3000 NE Stucki Avenue, Suite 230-M
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Telephone: (503) 846-1160
Facsimile: (503) 922-3181
E-mail: bknewtson@yahoo.com
- and -
Mark Passannante, Esq.
BROER & PASSANNANTE, P.S.
1050 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1220
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 294-0910
Facsimile: (503) 243-2717
E-mail: markpassannante@msn.com
Defendants-Appellees SUTTELL & HAMMER, P.S., FKA Suttell, Hammer &
White, P.S. and PATRICK J. LAYMAN, are represented by:
Kevin Hisashi Kono, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
Portland, OR 97201-5610
Telephone: (503) 241-2300
Facsimile: (503) 778-5299
E-mail: kevinkono@dwt.com
TARCO SPECIALTY: Kirsch Research Says Roof Design Patent Infringed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsch Research and Development, LLC v. Tarco Specialty Products,
Inc., Case No. 20-cv-00318 (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2020) is a patent
infringement case over:
Patent No Date Issued Description
--------- ----------- -----------
6,308,482 10/30/2001 Reinforced roof underlayment and
method of making the same
Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy Hayden, Esq.
Jonathan Ma, Esq.
Marc A. Fenster, Esq.
Matthew Aichele, Esq.
Theresa M. Troupson, Esq.
RUSS AUGUST AND KABAT
12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Tel: (310) 826-7474
Fax: (310) 826-6991
Email: ahayden@raklaw.com
jma@raklaw.com
mafenster@raklaw.com
maichele@raklaw.com
ttroupson@raklaw.com
- and -
K. Andrew Kent, Esq.
RINCON VENTURE LAW GROUP
2815 Townsgate Road Suite 215
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Tel: (805) 557-0580
Fax: (805) 557-0480
Email: akent@rincongroup.com
- and -
Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Esq.
Capshaw DeRieux, L.L.P.
114 E. Commerce Ave.
Gladewater, TX 75647
Tel: (903) 233-4816
Fax: (903) 236-8787
Email: ederieux@capshawlaw.com
TESLA INC: Canadian Owners Sue Over Paint Issues
------------------------------------------------
Alex Reid, writing for Driving (Canada), reports that Telsa is
facing a class-action lawsuit over the paint in its automobiles.
The lawsuit was launched in Quebec by Jean-François Bellerose, who
claims the black paint on his Model 3 is chipping and peeling on
the lower rocker panels six months after purchase.
The Tesla Model 3 has known rust issues, and the brand even tried
to rectify them by offering paint guards that attach to the rocker
panels, to help prevent stone chips on the paint.
According to Motor Illustrated, when Bellerose contacted Tesla to
fix the paint, he was told the damage wasn't covered under
warranty, despite the Model 3's warranty lasting a year. It cost
Bellerose $4,738 to repair the finish on his vehicle.
Bellerose also notes most Quebec owners keep their vehicles for
eights years, and many manufacturers offer a three-year paint
warranty.
The plaintiff is looking for more people who have experienced a
similar issue with their Teslas in the same time frame, as well as
owners who weren't informed of this issue at the time they bought
the car.
The plaintiffs are hoping to win enough money to reimburse those
affected for the cost of the paint issue; or to reimburse them the
difference between the Model 3's sale price and the depreciated
value. They are also suing for Tesla Model 3 owners involved in the
case to receive an extra $500. [GN]
TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Model 3 Paint Issues
-----------------------------------------------------
Fred Lambert, writing for Electreck, reports that Tesla is facing a
new class-action lawsuit over paint issues on Model 3 vehicles in
cold weather with owners seeking financial compensation.
In places with tough winters where they use salt and sand on the
road, some Model 3 owners have reported surprisingly fast paint
degradation at the bottom of their cars.
Like with other cars, Tesla Model 3 owners turned to aftermarket
products like Xpel paint protection film and even mud flaps.
Tesla has somewhat acknowledged the issue since they offered the
"All-Weather Protection Kit" for free to owners in colder
climates:
"In certain regions where heavy salt, sand, or gravel is used
to improve winter road conditions, we're providing the All-Weather
Protection Kit to help protect your paint from stone chips - at no
cost. Instructions for self-installation are included."
The issue has especially been a problem in Quebec, Canada where
there are many Model 3 owners thanks to the local EV incentives and
cheap electricity.
A local Model 3 owner, Jean-François Bellerose, decided to start a
class-action lawsuit against Tesla because they refused to repair
his paint issues.
The lawsuit states that Bellerose noticed some accelerated paint
deterioration on his less-than-a-year-old Model 3 last February
after going through its first winter.
He contacted Tesla about the problem, but the automaker refused to
fix the issue under warranty.
The Model 3 owner went to a body shop and he was quoted $4,700 to
fix the paint and corrosion at the bottom of his car.
After several attempts to have Tesla address the issue, he decided
to file a complaint against the automaker. [GN]
TEVA PHARMA: Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend itself in various state and federal cases
related to opioid sales and distribution.
Since May 2014, more than 2,900 complaints have been filed with
respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva
affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a
number of cities, counties, states, other governmental agencies,
tribes and private plaintiffs (including various putative class
actions of individuals) in both state and federal courts.
Most of the federal cases have been consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio ("MDL
Opioid Proceeding") and many of the cases filed in state court have
been removed to federal court and consolidated into the MDL Opioid
Proceeding.
Other cases remain pending in various states.
In some jurisdictions, such as Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia, certain state court
cases have been transferred to a single court within their
respective state court systems for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.
Complaints asserting claims under similar provisions of different
state law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged
in improper marketing and distribution of opioids, including
ACTIQ(R) and FENTORA(R). The complaints also assert claims related
to Teva’s generic opioid products.
In addition, personal injury plaintiffs, including various putative
class actions of individuals, have asserted personal injury and
wrongful death claims.
Furthermore, approximately 600 complaints have named Anda, Inc.
(and other distributors and manufacturers) alleging that Anda
failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify
suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent the abuse and
diversion of such products to individuals who used them for other
than legitimate medical purposes.
Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil
penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief.
Certain plaintiffs assert that the measure of damages is the
entirety of the costs associated with addressing the abuse of
opioids and opioid addiction and certain plaintiffs specify
multiple billions of dollars in the aggregate as alleged damages.
In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and several
damages among all defendants.
An adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits or investigations
may involve large monetary penalties, damages, and/or other forms
of monetary and non-monetary relief and could have a material and
adverse effect on Teva's reputation, business, results of
operations and cash flows.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMA: Suit Over Drug Pricing Strategies in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that discovery
ongoing in the consolidated class action suit related to pricing
strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio.
On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Teva and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.
Those lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut (the "Ontario
Teachers Securities Litigation").
On December 13, 2019, the lead plaintiff in that action filed an
amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's
securities between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019.
The amended complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current
and former officers and directors violated federal securities and
common laws in connection with Teva's alleged failure to disclose
pricing strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio
and by making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain
offering materials. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages, legal fees, interest, and costs.
In July 2017, August 2017, and June 2019, other putative securities
class actions were filed in other federal courts based on similar
allegations, and those cases have been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.
Between August 2017 and January 2020, eighteen complaints were
filed against Teva and certain of its current and former officers
and directors seeking unspecified compensatory damages, legal fees,
costs and expenses.
The similar claims in these complaints have been brought on behalf
of plaintiffs, in various forums across the country, who have
indicated that they intend to "opt-out" of the plaintiffs' class if
one is certified in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation.
On March 10, 2020, the Court consolidated the Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation with all of the above-referenced putative
class actions for all purposes and the "opt-out" cases for pretrial
purposes. The case is now in discovery.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
UNITED STATES: Lopez Files Class Action in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The United States of
America. The case is styled as Franklin Lopez, Yeriel Ramirez
Torres and Samuel Martinez Lopez, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. William P. Barr, James McHenry, United States
Attorney General, United States of America, Chad F. Wolf and The
United States of America, Defendants, Case No.
0:20-cv-01330-JRT-BRT (D. Minn., June 9, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Administrative
Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.
William Pelham Barr is an American attorney and government official
and the 77th and 85th United States Attorney General.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nicholas Ratkowski, Esq.
Contreras & Metelska, P.A.
200 University Avenue W., Suite 200
Saint Paul, MN 55103
Tel: (651) 771-0019
Fax: (651) 772-4300
Email: nico@contrerasmetelska.com
UNIVERSAL INSURANCE: Leach Files Breach of Insurance
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Insurance
Company of North America. The case is styled as Beverly Leach,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Universal Insurance Company of North America, Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-02193-JFA (D.S.C., June 9, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
pursuant to Diversity-Declaratory Judgment.
Universal Insurance Company of North America provides quality
protection for a variety of insurance needs including Homeowners,
Renters, Dwelling Fire, Flood, Earthquake, and Commercial.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Eugene Massey, Esq.
Massey and Associates
PO Box 7014
Columbia, SC 29202
Tel: (803) 799-9022
Fax: (803) 256-4824
Email: radmassey@aol.com
- and -
Summer Collette Tompkins, Esq.
David E Massey Law Office
PO Box 7014
Columbia, SC 29202
Tel: (803) 799-9022
Email: summertompkins2010@gmail.com
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Yoo Wants Fee Refund Over COVID Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY YOO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Case No.
30-2020-01140827-CU-BC-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., May 26,
2020), is brought on behalf of all students, who paid tuition and
fees for the Spring 2020 academic session at the 10 campus-based
universities within the UC system, and who did not receive the
benefits of their bargain when the University of California failed
to refund some or all of these monies, despite having effectively
closed campuses in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In mid-March 2020, because of COVID-19 and health guidelines
announced by authorities, such as the California Department of
Health, each of the University of California campuses announced and
subsequently implemented a transition from in-person/on-campus
classes to online classes for the remainder of the Spring 2020
Sessions.
During that mid-March time period, the University of California
campuses also prohibited on-campus gatherings, shut down virtually
all athletic events and other co-curricular activities, and
strongly encouraged students to move off campus and not to visit
campuses. Because classes were moved online, co-curricular
activities were no longer available, and most campus facilities
were shuttered, there was little reason for students to remain on
campus if they had other housing available, and similarly there was
little reason for 20 students living off-campus to go to campus.
The Plaintiff contends that despite these circumstances, the
University of California has not refunded to its students the
unused portions of fees paid for several campus-related services
for the Spring 2020 Sessions.
The Regents of the University of California is the governing board
of the University of California. The Board has 26 voting members.
The California Constitution grants broad institutional autonomy,
with limited exceptions, to the Regents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Neil Swartzberg, Esq.
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
nswartzberg@pswlaw.com
mweiner@pswlaw.com
- and -
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
WELLS FARGO: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of August 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO") and Of Counsel, Neil Rothstein,
Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action experience
including cases against ENRON and Halliburton), remind investors
that they have until August 3, 2020 to contact the Firm to learn
more about the class action filed against Wells Fargo & Company
(NYSE: WFC) and appointment and qualifications to be considered for
the role of lead plaintiff.
On April 5, 2020, Wells Fargo proclaimed that it had received
significant interest in a program under the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act, the Paycheck Protection Program
("PPP"), and intended to distribute a total of $10 billion to small
business customers through it. Then, on May 5, 2020, Wells Fargo
filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, disclosing that in
addition to multiple PPP-related lawsuits, Wells Fargo had
"received formal and informal inquiries from federal and state
governmental agencies regarding its offering of PPP loans." On
this news, the company's share price declined over 6% over the next
two trading days.
The class action has been brought against Wells Fargo and certain
of its executives and alleges that throughout the Class Period
(April 5, 2020 to May 5, 2020), Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly
allocate government-backed loans under the PPP, and/or had
inadequate controls in place to prevent such misallocation; (ii)
the foregoing foreseeably increased the Company's litigation risk
with respect to PPP allocation, as well as increased regulatory
scrutiny and/or potential enforcement actions; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased Wells Fargo shares between April 5, 2020 and May
5, 2020, and would like to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action and/or serve as lead plaintiff, you can
call Anthony Barbuto at 888-715-2520 (office), text or call at
561-531-8221 (cellular) or email anthony@barjolaw.com. You can also
email Neil Rothstein at neil@barjolaw.com.
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A.
Anthony Barbuto, Esq.
1-888-715-2520
12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101
Wellington, FL 33414
www.barjolaw.com [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Settlement Objectors More Parasitic Than Productive
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that under the federal
rules for class actions, objectors have a legitimate role in the
process of assuring that proposed settlements serve the interests
of class members. Bad faith objectors whose only motive is to
extract payments from class counsel are, quite rightly, disdained
as obstacles standing in the way of class members' recovery. But as
the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
said in the notes accompanying the 2018 amendment to Rule 23, good
faith objectors, who scrutinize proposed settlements and fee awards
to class counsel for flaws that disserve class members, help judges
evaluate settlements. And they're entitled to ask for fees, the
committee said, when they've served that role.
That's easy to say in the abstract. In real life, it's not so easy
for trial judges who've overseen complex class actions to determine
whether objectors deserve fees and what those fees should be. Or,
at least, for trial judges to reach a determination that satisfies
objectors and class counsel.
The latest example comes from the $142 million settlement resolving
class action allegations that Wells Fargo opened unauthorized
savings, checking and credit accounts without customers' approval.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of San Francisco approved the
settlement at the end of a hearing in May 2018, after three years
of litigation. In a final approval order the following month, he
awarded about $23.8 million in fees and costs to class counsel from
Keller Rohrback.
Objectors' counsel from Audet & Partners received nothing. They
originally requested nearly $4.3 million, claiming responsibility
for significant improvements in the claims process, including a
long extension of the deadline for filing claims. After Keller
Rohrback protested that Audet deserved, at best, part of the credit
for extending the claims period, Audet reduced its request to about
$1.8 million. In a two-sentence order in May 2018, Judge Chhabria
rejected the objectors' request for fees. "The court has reviewed
their motion and all papers filed in connection with it and
concluded that their contribution, and the contribution of their
counsel, is too small to warrant a fee award," he wrote.
Audet appealed Judge Chhabria's fee decision to the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the judge abused his
discretion and disregarded 9th Circuit precedent calling for fees
to objectors who have achieved measurable improvements to a
proposed settlement.
Keller Rohrback disputed that the objectors' contributed anything
to the settlement. Judge Chhabria, class counsel said, was deeply
engaged in the litigation of the Wells Fargo class action. When the
parties reached an initial agreement, the Keller brief said, the
judge reviewed it rigorously. It was Judge Chhabria's scrutiny, and
not Audet's briefing for the objectors, that led to nearly all of
the claims process improvements for which Audet claimed credit,
according to Keller Rohrback. Judge Chhabria, as the overseer of
the class action for three years, knew better than anyone the value
of Audet's contribution, class counsel argued. The 9th Circuit, it
said, should defer to his discretion.
Keller's Derek Loeser made the same pitch at oral arguments in
February to Judges Mary Murguia, Ronald Gould and U.S. District
Judge Gary Feinerman of Chicago, sitting by designation. When Judge
Murguia asked why Audet shouldn't be paid fees based on the
extension of the claims deadline, Loeser responded that Judge
Chhabria would have changed the deadline even if there had been no
objection. "The court made a decision based upon, we think, his own
view that there needed to be more time," Loeser said.
The 9th Circuit wasn't willing to take that bet. At the hearing,
Judge Feinerman pointed out that the appeals court couldn't be sure
of Judge Chhabria's thinking because the trial judge didn't write
even a short opinion explaining his rejection of the objectors' fee
request. After the oral argument, the appeals court issued an order
directing Judge Chhabria to explain why he did not believe Audet's
clients conferred a substantial benefit to the class by calling for
the claims deadline to be extended. The 9th Circuit noted that the
standard of review for fee awards is abuse of discretion, but said
it needed the additional information from Judge Chhabria to perform
that review.
Judge Chhabria responded on June 6. His two-paragraph order said he
would have extended the deadline on his own or when state attorneys
general requested more time for claimants. The objectors'
involvement, he said, was unnecessary because Keller Rohrback was
"vigilantly" protecting the interests of class members, and
unhelpful: "Their approach of throwing as many pieces of mud on the
wall as possible in the hope that one might stick suggested that
the intent behind their involvement was more parasitic than
productive," Judge Chhabria wrote.
Neither objectors' counsel William Audet -- whose firm, according
to its website, typically represents class action plaintiffs, not
objectors -- nor class counsel Loeser responded to my emails
requesting comment on Judge Chhabria's filing or, more broadly, on
the role of objectors in the class action process.
I wonder what the 9th Circuit will make of Judge Chhabria's
characterization of the Wells Fargo objectors. Objectors certainly
shouldn't receive fees if they haven't benefited the class. But nor
should legitimate objectors be discouraged from challenging
proposed settlements.
It's an obvious cliche that the adversarial system collapses in the
class action settlement approval process, when class counsel and
defendants are both advocating for their deals to be approved.
Class members must rely on vigilant judges to protect their
interests. And sometimes objectors prompt judges to be more
vigilant. Under Rule 23, after all, good-faith objectors have a
right to scrutinize the conduct even of upstanding class counsel
like Keller Rohrback.
Judge Chhabria clearly believes that in the Wells Fargo case, the
Audet firm's objection did not help him evaluate the deal and did
not benefit the class. I just hope his order does not persuade
would-be objectors not even to make the effort. [GN]
WEWORK COMPANIES: Hit With Class Action Over Failed IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
The Real Deal reports that a group of investors have filed a class
action lawsuit against WeWork -- the latest of a series of disputes
stemming from the company's failed public offering.
In a complaint filed in San Francisco's federal court, the
investors claimed WeWork executives overhyped the company's
business plan in order to sell stock, Bloomberg reports.
Further, they said the executives minimized losses as "strategic
investment spending that would lay the foundation for
profitability."
"As would later be revealed, WeWork was engaged in profligate
spending in a reckless bid for growth at all costs -- not in a
manner designed to sustainably grow its business, but rather to
induce capital raises from investors at ever higher valuations,"
the complaint said.
SoftBank, which is also named as a defendant, was recently hit with
a lawsuit from WeWork's founder, Adam Neumann, after SoftBank
pulled out of a deal to buy $3 billion worth of WeWork shares from
investors -- a potential windfall for Neumann.
SoftBank said that it was scrapping the deal because of "multiple,
new and significant pending criminal and civil investigations,"
which changed conditions ahead of the deal's April 1 closing date.
But Neumann rejected that, claiming that Softbank CEO Masayoshi Son
had been "secretly taking actions to undermine" the agreement for
some time.
Neumann said in the suit that he "put his trust in [SoftBank and
the Vision Fund] to be stewards of WeWork, which he -- and
thousands of others -- had worked so hard to build." Neumann
alleged that he, unlike SoftBank, had "upheld [his] end of the
bargain." [GN]
YOUFIT HEALTH: Faces Davis Suit Over Recurring Monthly Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
KURT E. DAVIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. YOUFIT HEALTH CLUBS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company and ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., an Arkansas corporation,
Case No. 107917643 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., May 26, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants closed their fitness centers, thereby,
denying access and use of the centers, while continuing to charge
monthly fees.
The Plaintiff contends that Youfit and ABC have knowingly and
intentionally continued to recurrently charge him and the Class
despite knowing that the Youfit's fitness centers are closed and
that Executive Order 20-71 ordered the closure of gymnasiums and
fitness centers within the State of Florida.
On March 20, 2020, the Florida Governor, Ron DeSantis, issued
Executive Order 20-71 in response to the recent COVID-19 crisis
which required the closure of gymnasiums and fitness centers within
the State of Florida. Youfit closed all of its fitness centers on
March 17, 2020.
Youfit offers gyms & health clubs. ABC Financial develops
healthcare software.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell A. Wade III, Esq.
RUSSELL A. WADE III, P.A.
P.O. Box 172
Lake Butler, FL 32054
Telephone: 386 496-9656
E-mail: wadelaw@gmail.com
ZOOM VIDEO: Fails to Provide Data Security, Saint Paulus et al. Say
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SAINT PAULUS LUTHERAN CHURCH and HEDDI N. CUNDLE, individually and
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:20-cv-03252-SVK (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2020) is an action
brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant for, among other
things, negligence, breach of implied contract, and violations of
the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"), the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").
According to the complaint, instead of providing Saint Paulus
Lutheran Church and its congregants with a password-protected and
secure videoconferencing platform, Zoom allowed a "known offender"
-- one who "has been reported multiple times to the authorities" --
to Zoombomb Saint Paulus's May 6, 2020 bible-study class. As a
result, Ms. Cundle, Saint Paulus's administrator, and other
attendees of the bible-study class -- most of whom were senior
citizens -- had their computer screens hijacked and their control
buttons disabled while being forced to watch pornographic video
footages. The footages were sick and sickening -- portraying adults
engaging in sexual acts with each other and performing sexual acts
on infants and children, in addition to physically abusing them.
Because of the Defendant's utter failure in providing security, the
Plaintiff's bible-study class was Zoombombed twice within minutes.
Traumatized and helpless, Ms. Cundle and Saint Paulus's congregants
ended their bible-study class. Ms. Cundle immediately reached out
to Zoom and demanded action to rectify the situation and to improve
security for future videoconferences. Zoom did nothing.
By bringing this class action on behalf of themselves and other
Zoom users, Plaintiffs seek (a) damages for Zoom's violations of
their privacy rights and its unfair, unlawful, and deceptive
business practices; and (b) restitution and injunctive relief
prohibiting Zoom from continuing its unfair, unlawful, and
deceptive business practices.
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. is a San Jose, California-based
company that provides video-communication services using a cloud
platform for video and audio conferencing, collaboration, chat, and
webinars.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
Email: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
achang@bottinilaw.com
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com
- and -
Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
Tyson Redenbarger, Esq.
Anya N. Thepot, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
Email: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
athepot@cpmlegal.com
[*] Businesses Face Class Action Risks Post-COVID-19
----------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Jennifer Riley, Esq., of Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that as businesses
chart their paths through the difficulties of reopening their
operations in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, another risk looms
-- the danger of being the target of a class action lawsuit. That
trend is in its formative stage already, and members of the
plaintiffs' class action bar have made clear that they envision a
target-rich environment for lawsuits on behalf of workers and
consumers. The foreseeable future presents unprecedented
challenges for business executives and corporate counsel.
In this post, the law firm outlines a playbook that can serve as a
class action survival guide for corporations and their
decision-makers. Extensive compliance efforts, well-crafted
planning activities, and careful administration of corporate
protocols are key to creating a risk management program that gets
ahead of post-COVID-19 class action exposures.
Key Risks In The Post-COVID-19 Business Environment
As the pandemic took hold, members of the plaintiffs' bar retooled
their class action theories to match the landscape. They targeted
companies over layoffs, continued work requirements, and allegedly
inadequate leave or benefits policies. As companies move to reopen
and rehire, they should anticipate similar adaptation, as the
plaintiffs' bar pivots to address legal risks in the next phase of
COVID-19.
In particular, we anticipate a surge of activity on the
discrimination, health & safety, and wage & hour fronts. Those
workers left out of mass re-hirings have the potential to assert
claims of workplace bias based on their prospective employers'
failure to include them. Those included in return to work plans
have the potential to assert ADA claims for failure to accommodate
and public nuisance or breach of duty claims for their employers'
alleged failure to protect them from COVID-19 infections. Those
required to undergo temperature screenings or required to wait
during work station cleanings are apt to claim that their employers
improperly failed to compensate them for such time.
Members of the Plaintiffs' class action bar have begun testing
these theories, and courts have begun to start weaving a patchwork
of answers to questions such as whether a non-symptomatic plaintiff
can represent or participate in a class that includes individuals
who experienced symptoms and whether employers who allegedly failed
to follow health & safety guidance are subject to claims for public
nuisance or breach of duty. Employers can expect a dizzying array
of legal rulings on these novel issues in the coming months.
Compliance Activities – Where To Focus Efforts
With this smorgasbord of potential claims and risks, how can a
company best navigate these issues? In our view, now is a good
time to revisit the policies and procedures that govern your
workplace and to develop clear protocols to address COVID-19
issues. On the policy front, employers should reevaluate the terms
and conditions of employment, including whether or how to adopt
workplace arbitration programs with class action waivers, revisit
their job descriptions, and review their complaint or grievance
processes to ensure that they have delineated a clear path for
raising and addressing employee concerns.
Relative to developing protocols, employees should respond to the
pandemic pro-actively by anticipating issues and adopting
thoughtful protocols before problems arise. In other words, rather
than wait for a worker to complain that a co-worker is coughing and
may be a potential source of the coronavirus, or for the same
worker to demand paid leave in response to safety concerns,
employers should develop protocols that anticipate these issues and
provide practical guidelines and clear rules that managers can
implement and workers can understand. Advance planning can help
employers ensure that they take a thoughtful approach across their
organization and across all components of their workforce.
Haphazard, one-off decision-making is typically a recipe for legal
problems, whereas sound protocols and structured decision-making
often builds a solid framework for better outcomes and legally
defensible positions.
Planning Activities – Key Decisions To Reduce Or Eliminate Class
Actions
A company's protocols should take into account the nature of its
business and workforce. A fear of reporting to work, for example,
is a significant issue that many employers are apt to encounter.
When workers are scared to report to work due to safety concerns,
employers should begin by understanding the reason and whether the
worker is scared because of a disability. If so, the employer
should utilize an individualized interactive process appropriate to
the employee's circumstances. The answer might turn on whether the
employee can perform the essential functions of his or her job from
home and, if so, whether beginning or continuing a work from home
arrangement may be a reasonable accommodation.
For employees for whom work from home is not an option, employees
should take care to develop protocols that comply with and
implement guidance issued by agencies such as the CDC, OSHA, and
the EEOC. Further, they should provide clear rules for their
managers and workers to follow relative to implementing these
protocols.
Administration Of Corporate Protocols – Creation Of Positive
Evidence To Nip Class Action Exposures In The Bud Before They
Spiral Out Of Control
Beyond merely developing protocols, employers need to think
pro-actively about tracking and documenting their compliance
efforts. Many employers have developed cleaning protocols, made
masks available, and instructed employees to maintain social
distancing. But employers also need to plan ahead so that they are
prepared to demonstrate that, if challenged, their cleaning
protocols were implemented and followed on a local level, employees
were made aware of policies and procedures, and concerns were
investigated and remediated.
These problems require application of the fundamentals of sound
human resources administration. In addition to developing
guidelines and protocols, employees should document their
compliance efforts. Employers should consider asking employees to
acknowledge their receipt and agreement to abide by workplace
protocols, should roll out or reinforce a complaint process for
employees to raise or report concerns, and should document their
cleaning efforts and corrective measures.
Conclusion -- A New Corporate Playbook
Class action litigation will continue to evolve to the realities of
the pandemic and post-COVID-19 pandemic workforce. Employers can
augment their defenses to litigation to get ahead of the curve
through thoughtful planning, execution, and documentation. [GN]
[*] Class Actions Against Cannabis Companies on the Rise
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Smith, writing for Marijuana Business Daily, reports that
class action lawsuits against cannabis companies are rising, driven
by industry growth, stock price volatility, regulatory
uncertainties and preventable mistakes by the companies
themselves.
The trend shows little sign of abating in the short term, but
marijuana companies can reduce their exposure by being more
transparent and forthright when disclosing their financials,
potential of their products, value of their transactions and other
relevant information, legal experts say.
It pays to be cautious in advance: Merely defending against a class
action claim can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal
fees -- and a lot more if the case goes to discovery.
"Plaintiffs' firms are always out there and monitoring the
markets," said Michael Jones, a partner in the Boston-based Goodwin
law firm's cannabis practice.
When a company's stock price suddenly drops, he added, "then they
take a hard look at what a company said previously, whether they
think they can make a case that what the company said was false or
materially misleading."
Lawsuits on the rise
Goodwin recently published a report, "Update on Securities
Litigation Against Cannabis Companies," that detailed 13 class
action cases filed against publicly held marijuana and CBD
companies in 2019, more than double the six cases filed the
previous year.
Most claims against publicly held cannabis companies focus on
disclosure issues, specific transactions, financial guidance,
financial restatements and internal controls, according to the
report.
Jones, the author of the Goodwin report, said he was struck by the
number of cases that were seemingly precipitated by short-seller
activist shareholders.
Here are examples of a few class action claims filed since December
2018. Companies have denied the allegations.
-- December 2018: Claim against Canadian-based Aphria for
allegedly making false and misleading statements related to the
value of an acquisition in Latin America. The claims were sparked
by a short-seller report.
-- November 2019: Claims against Canadian-based Aurora Cannabis
for allegedly failing to disclose earlier that its revenue for the
first quarter of fiscal year 2020 would decline and the company
would temporarily halt construction of its facilities.
-- December 2019: Suits against Florida-based Trulieve for
allegedly making false and misleading financial statements,
including overstating the value of its biological assets. The
lawsuits were prompted by a short-seller report.
In addition to stockholder lawsuits, consumer class action cases
against CBD companies are increasing at a rapid clip because of the
influx of capital into the industry, said Jesse Mondry, co-chair of
Harris Bricken's dispute resolution/litigation practice group.
A U.S. Federal Food and Drug Administration warning letter against
a CBD company for making an unfounded health claim, for example,
"is almost an invitation to a plaintiff lawyer," Mondry said.
Incomplete, inaccurate disclosures increase vulnerability
Stock offerings require companies to disclose risk factors,
detailed financials and other relevant information.
But a lot of companies take shortcuts because they are operating on
a shoestring budget or lack experienced counsel in securities
matters, said California cannabis attorney Khurshid Khoja, founder
of Greenbridge Corporate Counsel.
"So there's plenty of room for missteps, even when one is trying to
be aboveboard and transparent," he said.
It's not easy, Khoja added, for a company to ask investors for
money while at the same time telling them "all the horrible things
that could happen to their investment" in their risk disclosures.
In other cases, he added, "some companies didn't show as much
integrity when they were raising money and knew they were taking
shortcuts" such as omitting material information.
Careful disclosure can go a long way toward protecting a company.
Jones noted that a New York state court recently dismissed a 2019
class action securities case against Sundial Growers, primarily
because the Canadian-based cannabis cultivator had included 35
pages of risk factors in its public stock offering filing. A
federal lawsuit is pending.
Cannabis companies also must be cautious after they've gone public
with their news releases, quarterly earnings calls, regulatory
filings and discussions with industry analysts.
"Companies need to make sure that everything is squared away and
that their disclosures are accurate and include robust risk
disclosures," Jones said.
Experts advise working closely with internal teams and experienced
counsel to ensure public disclosures are accurate.
"You have to be forthright and transparent with investors," Khoja
said.
Communications need to be "thoroughly vetted and checked for
accuracy before making statements to the public," he said, so a
company doesn't overstate or omit relevant information.
There are incentives to do so: Playing by the rules helps cannabis
companies keep their licenses, avoids unnecessary legal exposure
and keeps investors happy, he said.
Class action primer
The class action process works like this.
Often, a number of law firms file claims, then "duke it out" over
the next 90 days to see who will be appointed the lead counsel,
Goodwin's Jones said. Then motions to dismiss and decisions on
those motions can run another 12-18 months or so, he added.
If those claims survive, then a class of plaintiffs can be
certified by a judge and discovery takes place. For example, the
class might be defined as stockholders that owned the company's
stock during a certain period of time. Most claims that proceed
that far will be settled at some point.
According to Cornerstone Research, 47% of all federal securities
class action claims between 2009 and 2018 have been dismissed, and
another 36% settled. Many are pending.
"Very few securities class actions will go to trial," Jones said,
"because the potential damage figures are typically very large and
it's viewed as a significant risk to allow a case to be determined
by a judge or jury."
Spending money upfront on legal advice can save money in the long
run, experts said.
The goal is to get a class action claim dismissed at an early
stage, Jones said, but even then, the costs can run into the
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
"Almost every public company will have insurance that will cover
these types of claims," he said, but the "retention" amount or
deductible usually is a million dollars or more. The insurance
essentially is there as a backstop for large potential damages or
settlement costs.
Experts expect that class action claims are likely to continue to
increase in the future because cannabis markets are growing, stock
prices are volatile and companies' public disclosures will be
challenged.
"There are still new players coming into the industry, there are
still startups raising angel (investor) rounds," Khoja said.
"And these companies often don't have enough money budgeted for
legal expenses, so unfortunately, I think people will continue to
make some of the same mistakes." [GN]
[*] Grande Prairie Joins C$10 Billion Suit vs. Opioid Manufacturers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Watson John, writing for the Daily Herald Tribune, reports
that the City of Grande Prairie in Canada has signed on as the
representative plaintiff on behalf of municipalities in a
$10-billion class-action lawsuit regarding the opioid crisis.
The lawsuit is being filed against over 40 various pharmaceutical
companies for their alleged role in the harm caused to communities
and the resource strain placed on Canadian municipalities to
respond to the opioid crisis.
"Participating in this class-action lawsuit is a logical
continuation in our community's response to the opioid crisis,"
said Mayor Bill Given in a Wednesday release.
"Each of us in Grande Prairie has been impacted in some form by the
opioid crisis, and we can recognize the very real human cost the
issue has. It also has a very real financial toll in the form of
increased costs for local governments in areas ranging from
policing and emergency response services, to social programs needed
to address treatment and prevention and even into less expected
operational areas such as parks and transit operations."
The city is being represented by Guardian Law Group, a class-action
firm in Calgary, and working with Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, a U.S. firm
boasting a notably successful track record against similar
pharmaceutical companies.
Guardian Law Group met with the city's corporate services committee
May 12 to introduce the notion of Grande Prairie acting as the
representative plaintiff.
Through the courts, the representative plaintiff in a class-action
lawsuit essentially represents the mean to adjudicate all issues
common the represented class. This typically does not include
specific cases unique to certain municipalities, which would have
to be addressed separately.
The B.C provincial government launched a similar class-action
lawsuit last year on behalf of all provincial, territorial and
federal governments across Canada, which was joined by the Alberta
government in October. This represented class did not include
municipal-level representation.
The city is participating on a contingency fee basis, meaning there
will be no costs to the city and any fees are deducted only from
settlement funds. If there is no settlement awarded, the city will
not be held responsible for paying any fees.
"This lawsuit allows us to take action on behalf of all
municipalities and hold these companies, and not local taxpayers,
responsible for the costs incurred in our community due to the
opioid crisis," said Given.
"We look forward to other Canadian communities joining this suit."
Purdue Pharma, the makers of Oxycontin, filed for bankruptcy both
in the U.S. and in Canada in 2019 in an effort to protect itself
and its assets from a collective more than 2,000 lawsuits between
the two countries.
According to Mathew Farrell, why represented Guardian Law Group
when speaking to committee in May, claims may still be filed
against Purdue Pharma on an individual basis until June 30. This
includes consumers as well as institutions such as hospitals
wishing to file personal injury claims against the company.
During Farrell's original presentation, he recommended to committee
that it would be wise for Alberta to stake a claim to shares of
Purdue Pharma's assets before those resources became unavailable.
[GN]
[*] Lethbridge, CA Mayor Wants to Join $10 Billion Opioid Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Kalinowski, writing for the Lethbridge Herald, reports that
Mayor Chris Spearman will be bringing forth a motion to the next
city council meeting which will pave the way for the City of
Lethbridge, in Alberta, Canada, to join a $10-billion class-action
lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies who, it is alleged,
irresponsibly distributed opioids leading to the current opioid
crisis.
Calgary law firm Guardian Law Group recently announced it was
filing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of municipalities and
communities in Alberta affected by the Opioid Crisis with the City
of Grande Prairie being the first signatory.
Spearman said he hoped his fellow councillors would vote in favour
of the City of Lethbridge adding its own name to the lawsuit.
"I don't think there is a city in Alberta that has been more
adversely affected by the opioid crisis than Lethbridge," stated
Spearman. "We certainly should join that type of a class action.
What we have to understand is the whole opioid issue started with
over-prescription and evolved into illegal use of drugs
subsequently. Over-prescription was the cause of the situations we
are dealing with today."
"We have many stories in Lethbridge of people who were on
prescription medication who then became addicted to opioids," he
added, "so certainly the impact and the cost to the City of
Lethbridge has been phenomenal, and we certainly want to be part of
a class-action suit against the drug manufacturers who promoted the
use of opioids to patients."
Council is expected to vote on the motion at the June 15 council
meeting. [GN]
[*] Plaintiffs w/o Injury Lack Standing to Sue Under ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Lewis P.C. wrote an article on National Law Review on the
recent Supreme Court ruling that plaintiffs who suffered no injury
lack standing to sue under ERISA.
The plaintiffs' expectations surely suffered a blow after reading
the Supreme Court's initial observation in their case: "If [the
plaintiffs] were to lose this lawsuit, they would still receive the
exact same monthly benefits that they are already slated to
receive, not a penny less. If [the plaintiffs] were to win this
lawsuit, they would still receive the exact same monthly benefits
that they are already slated to receive, not a penny more." Thole
v. U. S. Bank N. A., No. 17-1712, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3030, *6 (June 1,
2020).
In a 5-4 decision, starting from this proposition, the Court held
that participants and beneficiaries in defined benefit plans lack
Article III standing to sue to assert fiduciary breach claims under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974, as
amended, for fiduciary mismanagement of the plan's assets because
they suffered no injury in fact and there was no injury that could
be redressed by the requested judicial relief.
Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized this
dispute arose in the context of a defined benefit plan. That was of
"decisive importance" because under a defined benefit plan,
retirees receive a fixed payment each month that does not vary
based upon the value of the plan or the fiduciaries' good or bad
investment decisions.
Background
The plaintiffs alleged an ERISA breach of fiduciary duty, claiming
plan fiduciaries invested defined benefit plan assets in U.S.
Bank's proprietary mutual funds, while paying the bank excessive
fees. They alleged this fiduciary misconduct caused $750 million of
defined benefit plan asset losses. They also sought at least $31
million in attorney's fees. During the litigation process, the plan
sponsor contributed approximately $311 million to the defined
benefit plan.
No Monetary Injury
The Court concluded the plaintiffs suffered no monetary injury
because their retirement benefits remained constant, regardless of
the plan's value at any time. This meant that the plaintiffs had no
concrete stake in the lawsuit.
Noting that the plaintiffs' counsel might have a stake in the suit,
the Court held that an interest in attorney's fees does not create
standing where standing does not exist on the merits. The Court
also held that if the plaintiffs had not received their vested
pension benefits, they would have Article III standing to recover
benefits due to them under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B).
Argument Based on Trust Law Rejected
The Court distinguished the applicability of trust law. The
majority held that participants in a defined benefit plan differed
from beneficiaries of a private trust. In the trust context, the
Court explained, the ultimate amounts of money beneficiaries
receive depends on how well the trust is managed, but a defined
benefit plan is more like a contractual promise. The Court noted
that benefits from a defined benefit plan will not change,
regardless of how well or poorly the plan is managed. Holding that
because plan participants possess no equitable or property interest
in the plan, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' analogy to trust
law.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas opined that the
common law of trusts should not be the starting point for
interpreting ERISA. Instead, he stated the starting point of the
analysis should be the statutory language of ERISA itself.
Other Arguments Rejected
Plaintiffs claimed they could proceed as representatives of the
plan; they also argued standing as assignees. As to their
representative standing on behalf of the plan, the Court held that
in order to represent the interests of others, litigants must still
sustain an injury in fact that provides a sufficiently concrete
interest in the in outcome of the dispute. This holding could have
distinct consequences for class certification where named
plaintiffs may seek to represent others although they have not been
injured by the challenged conduct. Along the same lines, the Court
rejected plaintiffs' effort to describe themselves as assignees, as
there was nothing in the complaint suggesting that the plan's
claims were assigned to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also argued they had standing because ERISA provides
defined benefit plan participants a general cause of action to sue
for restoration of plan losses. However, relying upon its earlier
holding in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016),
the majority held that a litigant does not satisfy the
injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a statutory
right a litigant sues to vindicate. The Court did note that this
holding did not implicate suits to obtain plan information.
However, even with this qualification, the application of Spokeo to
ERISA litigation is significant.
Plaintiffs contended that if plan participants cannot sue to target
fiduciary misconduct, no one will regulate plan fiduciaries
meaningfully. The Court held that plaintiffs' assumption that if a
party lacks standing no one will have standing universally is
insufficient where no standing exists. The majority also rejected
the factual predicate for this argument because ERISA fiduciaries
who manage defined benefit plans face a "regulatory phalanx." In
addition, the Court rejected claims raised by plaintiffs' amici
arguing that standing to sue exists here because egregious
mismanagement of a defined benefit plan substantially increases the
risk of plan failure and an employer's inability to pay future
benefits. The Court brushed off this argument noting that
plaintiffs did not assert this theory of standing. The Court also
held that the bare allegation of underfunding is insufficient to
demonstrate increased risk that a plan and its plan sponsor would
fail. While noting that it did not decide this point, in footnote 2
of the opinion, the Court observed that any claim of standing based
upon an increased-risk-of-harm theory also likely fails if plan
participants have their benefits guaranteed in full by the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
The Court observed that standing should not be more complicated
than it needs to be. The Court held there was no ERISA exception to
Article III standing and reiterated that standing fails because
plaintiffs have received all of their vested pension benefits to
date and are legally entitled to receive those benefits for the
rest of their lives. The Court concluded by stating that Plaintiffs
have no concrete stake in the dispute and lack standing because
winning or losing would not change Plaintiffs' monthly pension
benefits.
Implications
Thole will affect various areas of ERISA litigation. Many cases
attacking mismanagement of defined benefit plan assets likely will
become more challenging to pursue. Past examples illustrate this.
Between 2013-2016, many cases were filed asserting that Church
Plans were underfunded under ERISA standards. Given the Thole
holding, standing would have been difficult to assert. Where cases
allege fiduciary misconduct affects plan assets, standing will be a
primary hurdle for class plaintiffs.
The class action arena also may be affected by Thole. The Court
holds that litigants must sustain an injury in fact that provides a
sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the dispute. In
many class action litigations, the plaintiffs do not participate in
particular investments they challenge on behalf of the entire plan.
A standing argument might affect class certification in these
cases.
Finally, the Court's reliance on Spokeo is significant. ERISA is
replete with statutory requirements. Often a violation of an ERISA
statutory requirement results in no harm and no injury to plan
participants. Yet, many class actions are filed. For example,
consider COBRA notices where a slight variance from the statute
produces no injury or harm to class members. These statutory
claims, where there is no injury or harm to class members, now are
subject to a standing challenge under Spokeo and Thole. [GN]
[*] UK Art Organizations Readying Lawsuits vs. Insurers
-------------------------------------------------------
Anna Brady, writing for The Art Newspaper, reports that UK art
organisations are preparing to file a class-action lawsuit against
insurers, accusing them of failing to pay out as the coronavirus
disease (Covid-19) continues to decimate their incomes. The group
of more than 50 claimants -- none of whom wanted to be named --
includes major contemporary art galleries, museums and sole
traders, with claims ranging from around GBP50,000 to GBP35
million.
Many insurers have rebutted business interruption (BI) claims
during the pandemic, saying that the virus is not covered by their
policies. But after Covid-19 became a notifiable disease on March
5, a number of policies were triggered that provided cover for
"notifiable human contagious or infectious disease", according to
Rudy Capildeo, a partner at the law firm Charles Russell Speechlys,
which is handling the action. As more frustrated clients approached
the firm for advice, the law firm decided to initiate a "no win, no
fee" class action. The firm is currently advising several art world
clients on insolvency and restructuring, which Capildeo fears "may
snowball if urgent cash resource [such as an insurance pay-out] is
not freed up".
A London-based art dealer involved in the action says: "We were
very disappointed to be told by our insurer that this pandemic was
not anticipated by the policy, that there were general exclusions
that worked against us and so the policy would not respond.
"To be told vital cash flow from a resource on which you thought
you could rely was no longer available could now severely hinder
our route to survival. I know I am not the only business having
these sleepless nights and it seems remarkable that, having shown
years of loyalty paying expensive premiums, our insurer refuses to
recognise these unprecedented times and support the businesses that
have helped keep their balance sheets so profitable."
Caro Howell, the director of the Foundling Museum in London, which
is currently looking into its own business interruption claim,
says: "This collaborative approach offers a potentially invaluable
route for the museums and heritage sector, particularly for
independent museums who rely heavily on commercial activities such
as venue hire and retail. For organisations like ours, whose
trading income has been decimated by the pandemic, the possibility
of an insurance claim could offer a valuable lifeline."
The majority of the claimants are insured by Axa and Hiscox.
Responding to the allegations of the action, a spokeswoman for Axa
says: "It is our policy not to comment on clients or potential
litigation matters"; while a Hiscox spokeswoman says: "We
understand these are incredibly difficult times for businesses and
we are paying claims that are covered by the policies we issue,
including customers in the art space, fairly and quickly. Where the
application of a policy is disputed, our focus is on helping to
provide customers with greater certainty. A fair and fast
resolution is in everybody's interests, which is why we will work
with the UK insurance industry, our regulators and customers to
seek an expedited resolution through the range of existing
independent mechanisms."
Although lockdown in the UK is beginning to ease, many art
businesses are in dire financial straits. Galleries in the UK are
expecting to lose an average of 79% of their annual revenue due to
the Covid-19 pandemic, according to a survey conducted in April by
The Art Newspaper and the economist Rachel Pownall. Globally,
around a third of galleries do not expect to survive the crisis.
Museums are also facing an enormous financial shortfall, with the
closure of venues, bars and restaurants having led to a
catastrophic loss of income. Securing an insurance payout could be
crucial to their survival of the crisis.
Other law firms contacted by The Art Newspaper say they are also
considering launching legal action over unpaid claims on behalf of
their art clients. Filippo Guerrini-Maraldi, the chairman of the
insurance broker RK Harrison, which is the fine art division of the
Howden Broking Group, says that disputes over BI cover is "a hot
topic", but policies and their wording mean that not all who hold
BI insurance (which is an add-on to most policies) will have a
claim. Guerrini-Maraldi is currently working with three clients who
have strong claims, he says, and three who have a "grey area of
potential cover". But, he adds, "the majority of UK art dealers do
not have cover for communicable disease".
The wave of new litigation comes after the UK's financial watchdog,
the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), took to the courts to
clarify the BI insurance rights of firms whose trading has been
interrupted due to Covid-19. Meanwhile, another law firm, Mishcon
de Reya, has launched the Hiscox Action Group with more than 500
claims against the insurer, predominantly from the retail and
hospitality sector but some arts centres and local museums are also
involved.
Even if the FCA succeeds in gaining a clarification in court that
favours some insured, this will simply unlock the first door,
Capildeo says: "Claimants will then be met with at least one to two
further hurdles where they will need to argue the calculation of
their losses and that the losses were attributable to the
pandemic." The process will take "weeks, potentially months", he
says, therefore art businesses should "run their own claims
concurrently with the FCA's to ensure they're not at the back of
the queue when the ruling is made". [GN]
*********
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 ***