/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200622.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 22, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 124 Headlines 1569 LEX LLC: Estrada Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages 1623 PIZZA CORP: Underpays Pizza Makers, Davalos Alleges ADMIRAL INDEMNITY: Cetta Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage AFNI INC: Quinn Sues in E.D. New York Alleging FDCPA Violation ALLEN DISTRIBUTION: Rodriguez Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Loaders ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Alabama Court Dismisses Walker Class Suit ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Sofijon E-Cig. Antitrust Suit in California ALTRIA GROUP: Sued by Noor Baig Over Anticompetitive Agreements AMAZON.COM INC: Plates, Bowls Contain PFAS Chemicals, Nguyen Says AMERICA ORGANIC: Melendez Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls AMERICAN EXPRESS: Friedman Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. New York ANTHEM INC: Gianelli & Morris Files Class Action Lawsuit APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over App Store Loot Boxes APPLE INC: Faces Taylor Suit Alleging Anti-Gambling Law Violation ARCH INSURANCE: Denies Refund for Unused Ski Passes, Parker Claims ASSET RECOVERY: Matsui FDCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. New York AT&T INC: Must Face California Class Suit Over Administrative Fee AT&T MOBILITY: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Roberts Suit Upheld BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 22 Deadline BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Leyse TCPA Suit BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss RICO-Related Class Suit Pending BAUSCH HEALTH: Court Approves Settlement in Catucci Action BAUSCH HEALTH: Glumetza Class Certification Briefing This Month BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Camarena Claims BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Faces 1 S.A.N.T. Insurance Suit in W.D. Pa. BG RETAIL: $175,000 Settlement in Rivas Suit Gets Final Approval BLUE MOON: Keller Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Dancers, Entertainers BROOKDALE SENIOR: Ruling in Callahan Suit Appealed to 9th Circuit BST & CO: Patient Files Class Action Over Data Breach BUTTERFIELD CATERING: Juarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages C.S.T. CO: Shoemaker Finds Collection Letter "Aggressive" CALOP BUSINESS: Kimm Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Fails to Give Apt Housing Services, Longo Says CANTEEN 82 INC: Underpays Chefs, Chen Suit Alleges CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Waiver Valid, Court Rules CARGILL: Faces Class Action Over Domestic Beef Price Fixing CARNIVAL CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 27 Deadline CARNIVAL CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 27 Motion Deadline CARNIVAL CORP: Klein Law Notes of July 27 Lead Plaintiff Deadline CARRIZO (MARCELLUS): Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Slamon Suit CASPER SLEEP: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims CASPER SLEEP: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit CASPER SLEEP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Murphy Sues Over Telescope Price-Fixing CENTURYLINK INC: Fails to Protect Customers' PII, Woodard Alleges CHANGE.ORG INC: Sued by Randall in Calif. for Breach of Contract CHASE BANK: Final Approval Hrg. of $240K Chen Deal Set for June 25 CHEYENNE MEDICAL: Lilly Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Class Action Over Pricing CHISHOLM ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime to Consultants, Pogue Says CHOICE HOTELS: DiFlavis Fails to Get Conditional Certification CHUBB LTD: Susan Spath Sues Alleging Breach of Insurance Contract CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Moe's Original Files Suit in M.D. Florida CITY COMPASSIONATE: Conde Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages CLEANCHOICE ENERGY: Faces Velez TCPA Class Suit in W.D. New York COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Court Okay on Bid to Dismiss NJ Suit COLONY CAPITAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action COLONY CAPITAL: Kirby McInerney Notes of July 27 Deadline COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Class Action Over Credit Card Insurance COMMUNITY CARE: Murray Initiated Class Suit in N.D. New York CONAGRA BRANDS: Falsely Sells Chocolate Fudge Pudding, Mena Says CONFI-CHEK INC: Court OKs Transfer of Garza Case to Southern Texas CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Loses Dismissal Bid in Gary Lin Suit CREIG NORTHROP: 4th Cir. Vacates Summary Judgment in Baehr Suit CUTTERS WIRELINE: State Law Claims Certification in Lindsay Denied DAIMLER AG: Pickens Sues Over Mercedes-Benz's Defective Sunroofs DARE COUNTY: Faces Class Action for Refusing Pandemic Refunds DELPHI BEHAVIORAL: Monroe Sr. Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime DENKA PERFORMANCE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Butler Tort Suit DESPEGAR: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Cancellation Policy DFMMJ INVESTMENTS: Faces Itmaiza Class Suit in M.D. Florida DIGESTIVE CARE: Fails to Pay OT to Nursing Staff, McMichael Claims DOW JONES: Rentola Sues Over Disclosure of WSJ Subscribers' Info DTI MEDIA: Faces Zerwas TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Calls EDUCATION MINNESOTA: Teachers Lose Class Action Over Union Fees EDWARD S ZIZMOR: Williams-Hopkins Files FCRA Suit in New Jersey ELANCO ANIMAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action EMORY UNIVERSITY: $17M Retirement Plan Class Deal Gets Early Nod ENERGEN RESOURCES: Court Refuses to Dismiss Fullerton Suit ENHANCED RECOVERY: 7th Cir. Upholds Trial Court Ruling in Johnson EVENTBRITE: Sued Over Coronavirus Ticket Refund Policies FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces Aria Dental Class Suit in M.D. Georgia FBCS INC: Mitchell Sues in S.D. Texas Alleging Violation of FDCPA FCC BUTNER: Federal Judge Rules vs. Inmates in COVID-19 Lawsuit FLAIR AIRLINES: USA Routes Proposed Class Action Discontinued FOREMOST GLATT: Robinson Appeals Decision in Labor Class Suit FOUNDATION FOR NATIONAL: Faces Moore Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. GENERAL DYNAMICS: Court Dismisses Piron Suit With Leave to Amend GLV INC: Incurs $5K Civil Sanction in Mullen Class Suit GOOGLE LLC: Bias Against YouTube Competitors, Newman Claims GRAND CANYON: Faces Walsh Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop GRAND CANYON: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of July 13 Plaintiff Deadline GRAND CANYON: Rosen Law Reminds of July 13 Motion Deadline GROUPON INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of June 29 Motion Deadline GRUMA CORP: Orozco Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Production Workers GSX TECHEDU: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of July 7 Deadline HAMILTON BEACH: Glancy Prongay Notes of July 21 Plaintiff Deadline HAMILTON BEACH: Kirby McInerney Reminds of July 21 Deadline HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: Misclassifies Employees, McKenzie Suit Claims HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Taube Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses HEARTLAND PAINTING: Fails to Pay Complete OT, Rodriguez Claims HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Schall Law Files Class Action Complaint HERTZ CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Snell-Jones Labor Suit IANTHUS CAPITAL: Schall Law Firm Announces Filing of Class Action INFOSYS LTD: Faces Fresh Race Discrimination Suit in US INNOVATIVE TELESERVICES: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Perrong INT'L PAPER: Bids to Exclude Expert Testimonies in Slocum Denied INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Issuance of Notice in Rusis Suit Denied INTEROIL CORP: Fifth Cir. Appeal Filed in Block Securities Suit IQIYI INC: Le Rivage Sues Over Precipitous Decline in Share Price JAY-BEE OIL: Ash-Young Class Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Delays Generic Drug Competition, BCBSA Says JOHN DOE CORP: Underpays Staff, Rosendo Claims K&K HOLDINGS: Ritter Sues Over Inappropriately Withheld Tips KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action L'OREAL USA: Averts Cosmetics Packaging Class Suit in NY LAUNDRY DEPOT: Faces Leong Suit Over Employment Discrimination LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Faces Watson TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Texts LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Action Seeks Covid-19 Insurance Coverage LLOYDS LONDON: Faces RJH Suit Over Denial of Insurance Coverage LOCAL CANTINA: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Smith Claims LOUISIANA: Court Grants Tellis' Bid to Amend Prisoners Complaint M RAVIKOFF ASSOCIATES: Santiago Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Hotel Policy Violates ADA, Migyanko Says MCCARTHY BURGESS: Enden Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA MDL 2627: 4th Cir. Upholds $36M Deal in Chinese Flooring Litigation MDL 2785: Mylan Can File Notice Under Seal in Antitrust Suit MEDAC INC: Misclassifies Staff, Thomasson Claims MICHAEL KORS: Taylor Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif. MIDLAND COUNTY, MI: Faces Woods Suit Over Edenville Dam Failure MINNESOTA: Class Action Filed Over Harassment of Journalists MINTED INC: Faces Atkinson et al. Suit over Data Security Breach MINTED INC: Sued Over Data Breach Under California Law MJ-MC HOME: Seeks Review of Decision in Sanchez Labor Class Suit NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS: Remand Bid on Figuerola Suit Denied NAVIENT CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in DeWitt Suit NELNET DIVERSIFIED: Tenth Cir. Appeal Filed in Peterson FLSA Suit NESTLE USA: Judge Tosses Class Action Over White Chocolate Label NEW YORK TIMES: Moses Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Subscriptions NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Romankow Suit Over Tuition Fee Refunds NORCRAFT COS: Mariani Sues D&Os Over Sale to Fortune Brands NY UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Repayment of Tuition, Fees OAKLAND, CA: Sued for Excessive Force at Floyd Protests OAKLAND: Groups Sue over Violent Dispersal of Protesters OHIO NATIONAL: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Cook Case ORACLE AMERICA: Class Certification Granted in Equal Pay Case OUTSOURCE INC: Fails to Protect Patient Data, Freestone Alleges PACIFICA OF THE VALLEY: Fails to Track Hours Worked, Mora Claims PALLETONE OF FLORIDA: Brown et al. Sue Over Race Discrimination PASTRAMI PRINCE: Caballero et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, OT for Staff PATENAUDE & FELIX: Capi Files FDCPA Class Suit in C.D. California PHOENIX TREE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 26 Deadline POINT BLANK: Bid to Exclude Expert Reports in Troopers Suit Denied PRESTIGE CAFE: Underpays Grill Men, Ochoa Suit Alleges QUALCOMM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Camp Securities Suit QUANTA SERVICES: Continues to Defend Benton Class Suit QUICK BOX: Tan Sues in S.D. California Alleging RICO Violation QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Class Actions Seek Tuition Reimbursement RAYTHEON CO: Judge Dismisses Speech Therapy Coverage Class Action RED ROCK AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barton Suit Claims RELIANT ENERGY: Rogers Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls RUBY PRINCESS: Former Passengers Mull Class Action RYDER SYSTEM: Glancy Prongay Notes of July 20 Deadline SAN FRANCISCO ERS: Faces Goss Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Data Breach SANTANDER CONSUMER: Spivey Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania SCWORX CORP: Faces Leeburn Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop SILK CITY AUTO: Moore Alleges Deceptive Marketing Practices SILTSTONE RESOURCES: Underpays Oilfield Workers, Barkowsky Claims SKECHERS USA: Securities Suit in New York Concluded SKECHERS USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Wilk Class Suit SKIPPY FOODS: Faces White Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Nurlybayev Asks Mich. App. to Review Ruling SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Announces Class Action Filing SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action SPACE BRANDS: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Directors Win Dismissal of Class Suit SYNEOS HEALTH: Defendants Want Vaitkuviene Suit to Proceed SYNEOS HEALTH: Murakami Class Suit Dismissed TACTILE SYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay Continues Investigation TAP HOUSE: Morales Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA TIKTOK INC: Faces C.H. BIPA Suit Over Collection of Biometrics TOWNSQUARE MEDIA: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims TOWNSQUARE MEDIA: Portnoy Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued by Marques Over Fuel Pump Defect in Vehicles UKW HOLDING: Court Amends Caption of Colombo Labor Suit UNIFIED LIFE: Court Severs Third-Party Complaint in Butler Suit UNITED HEALTHCARE: Averts Wilderness Therapy Class Action UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Placko Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA: Ballas Seeks Tuition Refund Due to COVID-19 USA TAEKWONDO: Gilbert Allowed to File 3rd Amended Complaint USPACK SERVICES: Kendus Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida VIMEO INC: Court Denies Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration VIRGINIA: Faces Winks Suit Alleging Discrimination Due to Gender VITAMIN WIZARDS: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Text Ads WALGREEN CO: Underpays Call Center Agents, Olazagasti Alleges WELLS FARGO: Bam Navigation Sues over COVID-19 Loan Assistance WELLS FARGO: Howard G. Smith Announces Filing of Class Action WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 3 Motion Deadline WHOLE FOODS: D.C. App. Upholds Denial of Dismissal Motion in Molock WHOLE FOODS: Faces Hughley Suit Over Untimely Payment of Wages [*] Class Action Lawsuits Related to COVID-19 Pandemic Pile Up [*] Company Directors in Australia Want Total Ban on Class Action [*] Florida Supreme Court Suspends Attorney Behind Insurer Suits [*] Harmful Sanitizers May Prompt Class Actions, Underwriters Say [*] Simpson Thacher Attorneys Discuss Art. III Standing Rulings ********* 1569 LEX LLC: Estrada Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Floriberto Villalva Estrada, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 1569 LEX LLC (D/B/A AU JUS), PATRICK GRIFFIN, PHILIP BOZZO, and IGNACIO DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04534 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked, according to the complaint. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants employed and accounted for the Plaintiff as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Villalva employed as a food preparer, dishwasher, and ostensibly as a delivery worker at the Defendants' restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control a roasted meats eatery, located in New York City under the name "Au Jus."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 1623 PIZZA CORP: Underpays Pizza Makers, Davalos Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- RENE DAVALOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1623 PIZZA CORP. (D/B/A ENZO'S PIZZERIA); PAUL REISNER; and JESSICA GOLD, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02528 (E.D.N.Y., June 5, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Davalos was employed by the Defendants as pizza maker. 1623 Pizza Corp. (d/b/a Enzo's Pizzeria) own, operate, or control a pizzeria restaurant, located at Brooklyn, NY, under the name "Enzo's Pizzeria". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ADMIRAL INDEMNITY: Cetta Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL CETTA, INC. d/b/a SPARKS STEAK HOUSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADMIRAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04612-AT (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated entities and individuals who purchased all-risk commercial property insurance policy from the Defendant, alleges that the Defendant has denied claims for Business Income, Extra Expense, and Civil Authority Coverages by policyholders despite the fact that they suffered business interruption losses due to the government's Closure Orders in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19 virus. The Closure Orders are physically impacting private commercial property throughout the United States and the State of New York, threatening the survival of thousands of restaurants, retail establishments, and other businesses that have had their business operations suspended or curtailed indefinitely by order of civil authorities. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered a direct physical loss of and damage to their property because they have been unable to use their property for its intended purpose. Moreover, the Plaintiff argues that the policy's exclusion of loss due to virus or bacteria does not apply because the Plaintiff's and other Class members' losses were not caused by a virus, bacterium or other microorganism found in or on their insured properties but rather by the Closure Orders. Michael Cetta, Inc., d/b/a Sparks Steak House, is a restaurant owner with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Admiral Indemnity Company is an insurance company that offers underwriting and claims services for cooperative, condominium, rental buildings, and fine dining restaurants with its principal place of business located in Rutherford, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 AFNI INC: Quinn Sues in E.D. New York Alleging FDCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Afni, Inc. The case is styled as Miguel Quinn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Afni, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02597 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Afni, Inc., provides financial and commercial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com ALLEN DISTRIBUTION: Rodriguez Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Loaders --------------------------------------------------------------- JOBANY RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs, vs. ALLEN DISTRIBUTION, LP; and DOES 1- 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01202-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal., June 16, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendants for failure to pay employees for all hours worked, properly calculate and pay all overtime wages and sick pay due, provide compliant meal breaks, furnish accurate itemized wage statements and reimburse business expenses as as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the applicable California Industrial Wage Commission. Plaintiff was hired by Allen Distribution as a Loader in or around November 2019. In addition to Plaintiff, numerous other current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendant were not paid all the overtime they are owed. Plaintiff is a representative of those other current and former employees and are acting on behalf of their interests as well as their own in bringing this action. Allen Distribution, LP is a logistics services provider which does business in California and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Wasserman, Esq. William J. Gorham, Esq. Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY P.C. 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, CA 95207-8253 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 Facsimile: (209) 473-4818 E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com wgorham@mayallaw.com jbaysinger@mayallaw.com ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Alabama Court Dismisses Walker Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DAVID A. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-701-RDP (N.D. Ala.), Judge R. David Proctor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, (i) granted Defendants Allstate and CCC's Motions to Dismiss and Compel Appraisal; and (ii) mooted CCC's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of CCC's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Appraisal. Walker filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants Allstate and Defendant CCC. The suit arises out of a motor vehicle accident that rendered the Plaintiff's vehicle a total loss. The Plaintiff's vehicle was insured under a motor vehicle policy issued by Allstate. To determine the actual cash value of the Plaintiff's vehicle, CCC provided Allstate and the Plaintiff with a Market Valuation Report. The May 11, 2017, Market Valuation Report listed the actual cash value of the Plaintiff's vehicle as $6,394.81. In calculating this amount, the Market Valuation Report stated a base vehicle value of $6,979. After a $389 negative condition adjustment, the adjusted vehicle value was listed as $6,590. Allstate then added Department of Motor Vehicle ("DMV") fees, added vehicular tax, and subtracted the Plaintiff's $500 deductible. Finally, the May report listed the total cash value of the Plaintiff's vehicle as $6,394.81. The Plaintiff disputed the accuracy of the May 2017 Market Valuation Report. In response, he was provided with a second CCC report on June 6, 2017. The June report listed the actual cash value of his vehicle as $6,769.52. In calculating this amount, the Market Valuation Report lists the base vehicle as $7,338. After a $389 negative condition adjustment, the adjusted vehicle value was listed as $6,949. Just as with the May Report, Allstate then added DMV fees, added vehicular tax, and subtracted the Plaintiff's $500. The June 2017 report listed the total cash value of the Plaintiff's vehicle as $6,949. Again, the Plaintiff disputed the accuracy of the dispute. The Plaintiff subsequently learned that Allstate and CCC entered into a contract to provide CCC Market Valuation Reports to Allstate insureds, like the Plaintiff and the purported Class members. The Plaintiff claims the CCC Reports include purported market values of total loss vehicles based upon improper and unlawful methodologies. He also claims that Allstate has actual knowledge that the CC Methodology is statistically invalid and unlawful. Moreover, he claims that Allstate has suppressed and concealed material facts relating to CCC's Market Valuation System and its pre-existing scheme in conspiracy with CCC to intentionally undervalue total loss claims. The Plaintiff filed a five-count class action complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Plaintiff defines two subclasses: (1) the "Condition Adjustment Subclass"; and (2) the "Market Valuation Subclass." The Condition Adjustment Subclass consists of Alabama insureds whose total loss claims were reduced by negative or downward condition adjustments. Whereas, the Market Valuation Subclass consists of all Alabama insureds whose vehicles received CCC reports with "Adjusted Values" which were less than the Actual Cash Value as Established by Guidebooks. Plaintiff alleges these claims -- In Count I, against Allstate, he alleges breach of contract. In Count II, against CCC, the Plaintiff alleges tortious interference with performance with performance of a contract. In Count III, against CCC, the Plaintiff brings a breach of contract claim against CCC arising from the Plaintiffs' status as third-party beneficiaries of the Agreement between Allstate and CCC. In Count 4, the Plaintiff brings a bad faith claim against Allstate. Finally, he alleges that both Allstate and CCC were engaged in an illicit civil conspiracy to provide improper total loss valuations. In Count V, the Plaintiff alleges civil conspiracy against Allstate and CCC. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court certifies the class alleged in the complaint and appoint the Plaintiff as the Class Representative. In response, Allstate and CCC both filed Motions to Dismiss and Compel Appraisal. CCC also filed a Motion to Stay Discovery. The Court held a status conference in January 2020 to discuss the pending Motions. At the status conference, the Court ordered additional briefing on the equitable estoppel argument raised in the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Additional briefing was submitted on Feb. 14, 2020. Judge Proctor first addresses the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's claims against Allstate in Count I and Count IV. Next, the Judge addresses the Plaintiff's claims against CCC in Count II and Count III. Lastly, the Judge addresses the Plaintiff's claim against both Allstate and CCC in Count V. Allstate argues that the claims set forth in Count I should be dismissed pending completion of appraisal. First, Judge Proctor finds that the Plaintiff does not allege that Allstate has abandoned the right to appraisal by "substantially invoking the litigation process." Second, even if he could establish that Allstate did invoke the litigation process or abandon its rights, the Plaintiff bears the heavy burden of showing that he would be prejudiced by a subsequent order requiring him to submit to appraisal. The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and the exhibits attached to it fail to plausibly allege that Allstate's conduct, language, or silence amounts to the representation or concealment of a material fact or facts. There are no allegations that Allstate mischaracterized the appraisal provision through any affirmative communication, nor that it intended to induce reliance on its silence. Rather, the First Amended Complaint and attached exhibits show that Allstate informed the Plaintiff of the appraisal provision at least three times. Thus, the Plaintiff's equitable estoppel argument is without merit. For all of these reasons, the Plaintiff has failed to carry his heavy burden because he has failed to allege facts establishing that Allstate waived its right to compel appraisal, the Court finds. Allstate's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Appraisal is due to be granted. Next, the Plaintiff's bad-faith action is foreclosed by the prematurity of his breach of contract claim. The Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is not proper until an appraisal is completed. Without a viable breach of contract claim, the Plaintiff cannot maintain his claim for bad faith denial of a contract, the Court finds. As such, his bad faith claim is due to be dismissed. Count II claim fails because the Plaintiff prematurely assumes that he was damaged by the CCC market valuation reports, the Court holds. The Plaintiff will not know if his claim for breach of contract is proper until the appraisal process is completed. The same rationale preempts the Plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with performance of a contract. He received payment for his salvaged vehicle and until the appraisal is complete, he will not know if he was underpaid. As for Count III, the Plaintiff merely alleges that Allstate contract with CCC to receive market valuation reports from CCC and that the Plaintiff and the class are intended beneficiaries of the agreement between Allstate and CCC, the Court notes. While the Plaintiff made conclusory allegations suggesting that he was intended to directly benefit from the contract between CCC and Allstate, no facts in the complaint suggest that Allstate or CCC intended the Plaintiff to directly benefit at the time they executed their agreement. As the Plaintiff failed plead his third-party beneficiary status, his claim for breach of contract against CCC is due to be dismissed. Finally, the Plaintiff's underlying claims against CCC and Allstate are not viable, the Court further finds. Because his claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with a contract, and bad faith do not pass muster, the Plaintiff's claim for civil conspiracy necessarily fails. As such, his civil conspiracy claims against Allstate and CCC are due to be dismissed. After careful consideration, Judge Proctor granted Defendants Allstate and CCC's Motions to Dismiss. The Judge mooted the Motion to Stay Discovery. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 10, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/hvHkI7 from Leagle.com. David A Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by John Allen Yanchunis, Sr. -- jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com -- MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP & Jonathan H. Waller -- jwaller@waller-law.com -- WALLER LAW OFFICE PC. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kathleen V. Kinsella -- kathleen.kinsella@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, pro hac vice, Mark L. Hanover, DENTONS US LLP, pro hac vice, Henry Tonsmeire Morrissette -- hmorrissette@handarendall.com -- HAND ARENDALL HARRISON SALE, LLC & John Emory Rollins -- jrollins@handarendall.com -- HAND ARENDALL HARRISON SALE, LLC. CCC Information Services Inc, Defendant, represented by Kathleen P. Lally , LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP, pro hac vice, Marguerite M. Sullivan, LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert C. Collins, III, LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP, pro hac vice & Robert H. Rutherford, Jr., BURR & FORMAN LLP. ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Sofijon E-Cig. Antitrust Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Sofijon, Inc., Rose And Fifth, Inc. and Napht, Inc., individually and on behalf of all persons in the United States v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC, and JUUL LABS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-03861 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for damages and relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws, and the laws of unjust enrichment for violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. The proposed class action involves agreements among horizontal competitors Juul and Altria to eliminate competition by Altria in the market for closed system electronic cigarettes in exchange for transferring to Altria a partial ownership interest in JUUL. These agreements effectuated a horizontal allocation of the market, according to the complaint. JUUL and Altria agreed that the latter would exit the e-cigarette market entirely and instead become a minority shareholder in JUUL. This conduct constitutes a per se violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and constituted an unlawful acquisition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. According to the complaint, the agreements also provide the basis for the claims that JUUL attempted to monopolize and monopolized the relevant market of e-cigarettes sold in the United States and its territories in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and violated state Antitrust and consumer protection laws. This claim is not based on circumstantial evidence, but is based on written agreements among the Defendants--the "Relationship Agreement," dated December 20, 2018; the "Amended Relationship Agreement," dated January 28, 2020; and a commitment letter from Altria to JUUL, dated October 5, 2018--that contained unequivocal non-compete provisions. Negotiations resumed and an agreement was signed on December 20, 2018. The Altria Group acquired a 35% stake in JUUL for $12.8 billion. The agreement was reflected in a number of separate agreements, including: (a) the actual "Purchase Agreement"; (b) a "Services Agreement," whereby the Altria Group committed to provide various support services to JUUL; an (c) "Intellectual Property Licensing Agreement," which the Altria Group described in a Form 8-K filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission as giving JUUL a "non-exclusive, royalty-free perpetual, irrevocable, sublicensable license to Altria's non-trademark licensable intellectual property rights in the e-vapor field."; and (d) the aforementioned "Relationship Agreement." In the Form 8-K, the Altria Group specifically noted that: The Relationship Agreement generally prohibits Altria from competing, or otherwise acquiring an interest in an entity competing, in the e-vapor business for a period of at least six years from Closing [of the transaction], extendable thereafter unless terminated by Altria. According to the complaint, these provisions of the Relationship Agreement constitute a naked restraint of trade in the form of a market allocation between horizontal competitors. These provisions continued to be applied in the Amended Relationship Agreement entered by Altria and JUUL on January 28, 2020. Such agreements illegally restrained competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiffs assert that they were overcharged and sustained injury to their business and property. The Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes were injured by the elimination of the Altria Group as a competitor in the closed e-cigarette market, paid supracompetitive prices for JUUL's e-cigarettes as a result, and were denied the benefits of competitive innovation that could have existed had the Altria Group stayed in the market as an independent competitor, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased in California JUUL e-cigarette products indirectly, for resale, during the Class Period. Altria Group is one of the country's largest tobacco companies and was, prior to the anticompetitive agreements alleged, a manufacturer of closed-system e-cigarettes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Mario M. Choi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772- 4707 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com mchoi@kaplanfox.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Gregory K. Arenson, Esq. Hae Sung Nam, Esq. Jason A. Uris, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Ave., 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 687-1980 Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com garenson@kaplanfox.com hnam@kaplanfox.com juris@kaplanfox.com - and – Justin B. Farar, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 460 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone (310) 614-7260 Facsimile: (310) 575-8697 Email: jfarar@kaplanfox.com ALTRIA GROUP: Sued by Noor Baig Over Anticompetitive Agreements --------------------------------------------------------------- Noor Baig, Inc., Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and JUUL LABS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-03867 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2020), is brought against the Defendants concerning anticompetitive agreements between them in which Altria agreed to refrain from competing against Juul in the United States market for closed-system electronic cigarettes in return for a substantial ownership interest in Juul. By these agreements, Altria and Juul agreed to divide and allocate the market for e-cigarettes, the Plaintiff says. By this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief for the collusive and concerted restraint in trade orchestrated by Defendants. E-cigarettes are electronic devices that deliver nicotine to a user by vaporizing a liquid nicotine solution. In 2015, Juul entered the market and quickly captured substantial market share. By 2018, Juul had obtained market share of over 70 percent, stunning Altria and other competitors. Juul's swift rise posed a grave competitive threat to Altria in both the e-cigarette and traditional cigarette markets. To eliminate that threat, Altria began a two-prong strategy of acquiring Juul, while continuing to compete against it. Its efforts to acquire Juul were unsuccessful initially. With respect to competition, Altria introduced a new product known as the MarkTen Elite, which closely resembled Juul's product. With respect to acquisition, Altria entered into negotiations to acquire an ownership interest in Juul. Initially, Juul refused to negotiate. But in the fall of 2018, Juul agreed to negotiate with Altria, under the condition that Altria stop competing with Juul in the market for e-cigarettes. In particular, Juul refused to proceed with negotiations unless and until Altria had withdrawn its products. At first, Altria refused. In October 2018, however, Altria agreed and began to withdraw its e-cigarette products from the market. Two months later in December of 2018, Altria announced its intention to cease competing entirely in the relevant market. Approximately two weeks after making this announcement, Altria disclosed that, on October 20, 2018, it had entered into certain agreements with Juul. Among other things, the agreements provided that Altria would acquire certain ownership interests in Juul and other rights, in exchange for over $12 billion in cash and agreement by Altria to withdraw from and exit the e-cigarette market. The agreements between Altria and Juul, whereby Altria and Juul agreed to allocate the market for e-cigarettes, were anticompetitive, according to the complaint. The Defendants' conduct has illegally restrained competition in the relevant market in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, prices for e-cigarettes were raised, fixed and stabilized at supracompetitive levels. Altria's investment in Juul and its exit from the market eliminated its existing e-cigarette product and halted its ongoing innovation efforts toward developing new and improved products. Thus, consumers lost the benefit of current and future head-to-head competition between Altria and Juul, and between Altria and other competitors. The Plaintiff purchased Juul products directly from Juul during the relevant period. Altria is one of the country's largest tobacco companies and was, prior to the anticompetitive agreements alleged, a manufacturer of closed-system e-cigarettes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Steven N. Williams, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com swilliams@saverilawfirm.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Joshua Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICES 1735 Market St., Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 507-6085 Facsimile: (267) 507-6048 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Plates, Bowls Contain PFAS Chemicals, Nguyen Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICK NGUYEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC. Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04042-LB (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2020) alleges that the Defendant advertises, markets and sells disposable plates and bowls that contain significant amounts of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), which do not break down and never become part of usable compost. PFAS are known as forever chemicals because they do not break down over time. When PFAS are introduced into the environment, they seep into and contaminate both land and water and then never leave. Once introduced into soil, PFAS contaminate crops grown in the soil and meat farmed from animals that graze there. The complaint seeks to remedy Defendant's unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices with respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of the Products as compostable, when, in fact, they are not. Plaintiff purchased the Products in reliance on Defendant's false representations that the Products are compostable. Plaintiff viewed Defendant's false representations on the labels of the Products. Amazon.com Inc. is a Seattle, Washington-based multinational technology company that focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark N. Todzo, Esq. Meredyth Merrow, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 913-7800 Facsimile: (415) 759-4112 E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com mmerrow@lexlawgroup.com AMERICA ORGANIC: Melendez Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JASMINE MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICA ORGANIC SOLUTIONS CORP, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-05360 (C.D. Cal., June 16, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers in California, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in the illegal practice of placing repeated phone calls to consumers on the National Do Not Call Registry, including the Plaintiff, using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to promote and market its supplements. The Plaintiff claims that the repetitive telephone calls to consumers using an ATDS are in violation of TCPA as the Defendant did not obtain prior express written consent from consumers. America Organic Solutions Corp is an online vitamin supplement and medicinal corporate retailer with principal place of business located at 7500 NW 25th St., 240, Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Aftergood, Esq. THE AFTERGOOD LAW FIRM 1880 Century Park East, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 550-5221 Facsimile: (310) 496-2840 E-mail: aaron@aftergoodesq.com - and - Stephen A. Klein, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 907-4654 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: sklein@woodrowpeluso.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Friedman Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joel Friedman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. American Express Legal, American Express National Bank formerly known as: American Express Centurion Bank, Case No. 1:20-cv-00290, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 12, 2020. The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:20-cv-04513-CS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The American Express Company, also known as Amex, is an American multinational financial services corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Raymond Alexander Garcia, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 806-5485 Fax: (310) 407-6414 Email: rgarcia@stroock.com ANTHEM INC: Gianelli & Morris Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- On June 4, 2020, the California insurance law firm Gianelli & Morris filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case is Marie Fortier v. Anthem, Inc.; Anthem UM Services, Inc. Case No. 2:20-cv-4952. It seeks payment of insurance benefits, a determination of policyholders' rights under their policies, and relief for breach of fiduciary duty. The heart of the complaint alleges that Anthem improperly denies coverage for pain management through the use of percutaneous neuromodulation therapy (PNT) devices. Under Anthem's internal coverage guidelines, Medical Policy DME.00011, PNT is "considered investigational and not medically necessary for all indications." According to the complaint filed in court, the plaintiff Marie Fortier has a history of right knee osteoarthritis and has undergone multiple surgeries for her condition, including a knee replacement and reconstruction in 2014, a revision surgery in 2015, and another revision surgery in 2016. The complaint describes the patient as suffering from chronic right knee pain and receiving opioid prescriptions to treat her pain. According to court documents, the plaintiff's doctors recommended a seven-day trial of an FDA-approved Stimwave PNT device, through which the plaintiff found relief and was able to discontinue opioid use temporarily. This complaint was filed after the plaintiff's application for approval from Anthem to use PNT permanently was denied based on Anthem's medical policy guideline, which considered PNT experimental/investigational and not yet proven safe and effective for her symptoms in comparison to standard therapy. The lawsuit challenges Anthem's characterization of the PNT device as investigational/experimental and not proven safe and effective by pointing to FDA approval of the device and at least 20 randomized, controlled trials demonstrating PNT treatments for musculoskeletal pain as safe and effective. The complaint further alleges that PNT devices are currently in use as a standard clinical practice in treating chronic pain. "The PNT devices allow people who suffer from chronic pain to return to a normal life and stop taking opioids," said Rob Gianelli, the lead attorney on the case. "The technology works and has been proven to work for more than 20 years." The complaint alleges that as a result of Anthem's denial of coverage, the plaintiff has been living in constant pain, relying on drugs for temporary relief. The lawsuit seeks benefits due under the policy, a clarification of rights under the policy, and equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duty. The class-action complaint is brought on behalf of Marie Fortier and all others similarly situated who have been denied coverage for PNT by Anthem. Gianelli & Morris is a Los-Angeles based insurance law firm concentrating its practice in the representation of California insurance policyholders who have been denied benefits or otherwise been the subject of maltreatment by their insurance company. Contact: Carter Spohn Gianelli & Morris, ALC +1 213-489-1611 https://www.einpresswire.com/contact_author/519209074 [GN] APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over App Store Loot Boxes ------------------------------------------------------- Apple is being sued in a class-action lawsuit over the provision of apps in its App Store that sell loot boxes. AppleInsider reported that Apple was hit with a proposed class-action lawsuit targeting loot boxes in games and apps, a mechanism typically characterized by in-app purchases that present buyers with randomized digital rewards. A complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleges Apple is complicit in promoting gambling and addictive behavior by allowing developers to market apps and games with loot boxes on the App Store. According to iMore, the suit claims that "through the games it sells and offers for free to consumers through its 'App Store', Apple engages in predatory practices enticing consumers, including children to engage in gambling and similar addictive conduct in violation of this and other laws designed to protect consumers and to prohibit such practices." The lawsuit compares the practice to the advertising of big tobacco, which relies on creating addictive behavior to generate profit. iMore relates that the suit notes that a large portion of Apple revenue comes from, its App Store, where Apple takes a 30% cut of all sales: "Dozens (if not hundreds) of App Store games rely on some form of Loot Box or similar gambling mechanism to generate billions of dollars, much of it from kids." Apple's own website notes that 84 of apps on the App Store are free and that those developers pay nothing to Apple. On in-app purchases it states: These apps are free for users to download, and users can pay for additional digital features and content in the app with Apple's In-App Purchase system. Developers earn 70% of sales from in-app purchases and Apple collects a 30% commission. Apple also provides comprehensive parental controls to stop children from buying content within apps and games without their parents' permission. Specific games referenced include Mario Kart Tour, Fifa, and Roblox. [GN] APPLE INC: Faces Taylor Suit Alleging Anti-Gambling Law Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Taylor, and C.T., a minor by Rebecca Taylor, C.T.'s parent and guardian, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-03906 (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2020), is brought against the Defendant with regard to Loot Boxes that are allegedly a form of gambling and violate California's anti-gambling laws. Through the games it sells and offers for free to consumers through its "App Store," Apple engages in predatory practices enticing consumers, including children, to engage in gambling and similar addictive conduct in violation of laws designed to protect consumers and to prohibit such practices, the Plaintiffs assert. Not unlike Big Tobacco's "Joe Camel" advertising campaign, Apple relies on creating addictive behaviors in kids to generate huge profits for the Company, according to the complaint. Over the last four years, the Defendant's App Store games have brought in billions of dollars, even though the vast majority of the games are free to download. A large percentage of Apple's revenues from App Store games come from the in game purchases of what are known in the gaming industry as "loot boxes" or "loot crates." Dozens (if not hundreds) of App Store games rely on some form of Loot Box or similar gambling mechanism to generate billions of dollars, much of it from kids, the Plaintiffs contend. According to the complaint, Loot Boxes have all the hallmarks of a Las Vegas-style slot machine, including the psychological aspects to encourage and create addiction--especially among adolescents. Moreover, under California law they constitute illegal "slot machines or devices" when played on an iPhone, iPad, or other similar device. Governments, regulators, and psychologists, all agree that Loot Boxes, like the ones in games the Defendant offers through its App Store, operate as gambling devices for those that play the game, including minors, and that they create and reinforce addictive behaviors. While Apple does not itself create these games and the Loot Box mechanism used to entice children to gamble, Apple profits handsomely by 1) marketing, selling, and/or distributing the games to kids on Apple products and through its App Store platform; 2) acting as the agent for the developer in selling the Loot Boxes; and 3) handling the money in all of the transactions---taking a 30% cut of all money spent by players before transferring the remainder to the developer, says the complaint. Plaintiff Rebecca Taylor is the parent and legal guardian of C.T., a minor, who has owned and played Brawl Stars, a game sold and/or distributed by Defendant Apple, Inc. Apple creates and maintains a virtual online "store" where it makes available to consumers, who buy its products various software applications that are generally (but not exclusively) created by other developers in an effort to increase revenues for the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Brown, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN 501 W. Broadway, Ste. 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 501-6550 Email: andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'reardon II, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/338-1100 Fax: 619/338-1101 Email: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com ARCH INSURANCE: Denies Refund for Unused Ski Passes, Parker Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ EARL PARKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, and OUT OF TOWNE, LLC, d/b/a RED SKY TRAVEL INSURANCE, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00377-JNP (C.D. Utah, June 16, 2020) is a class action for breach of an insurance contract after Defendants refused to reimburse or refund Plaintiffs for the loss of use of ski passes. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs purchased optional insurance from Defendants to protect against the risk of not being able to use purchased ski passes. The insurance policies, which are materially the same for all members of the proposed class, expressly provide coverage for Plaintiffs who were not able to use the Ski Passes due to a covered peril, and represents to refund Plaintiffs for the cost of their Ski Pass minus the applicable daily rate or pro-rata reduction for each day that Plaintiff used their Ski Pass during the 2019/2020 ski season. Defendants are in material breach of the insurance policy by failing to refund Plaintiffs who were unable to use their Ski Passes for reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendants have caused material harm to Plaintiffs by improperly failing to make payment. Arch Insurance Company is an insurance and risk management solutions provider with principal place of business in New Jersey. Red Sky Travel Insurance is a North Carolina-based insurance coverage provider and an assumed business name for Out of Towne, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lindy W. Hamilton, Esq. Robert W. Gibbons, Esq. GRIDLEY WARD & HAMILTON 635 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401 Telephone: (801) 621-3317 E-mail: efiling@gwhlaw.net ASSET RECOVERY: Matsui FDCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Rihito Matsui, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, John Doe 1-10, Case No. 152017/2020, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 1, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02726 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, operates as an asset recovery management company. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew Blake Corwin, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY SCARBOROUGH, LLP 280 Park Avenue, Floor 15 West New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 471-6200 Fax: (212) 935-1166 Email: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com AT&T INC: Must Face California Class Suit Over Administrative Fee ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg Law reports that AT&T Mobility LLC will face claims it added a misleading administrative fee to flat monthly service plans after failing to convince a California federal court that a class action brought by wireless customers should be dismissed. The proposed class sued in 2019, alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and state consumer protection law. AT&T began charging the administrative fee on flat monthly plans in 2013, and increased the fees in small increments to reduce the likelihood that customers would notice the change, the consumers said. [GN] AT&T MOBILITY: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Roberts Suit Upheld --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARCUS A. ROBERTS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 18-15593 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying AT&T's motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit against Defendant AT&T alleging AT&T used deceptive and unfair trade practices by marketing its mobile service data plans as "unlimited" when AT&T allegedly limited those plans in several ways, including "throttling" -- slowing down mobile data speeds after the consumer uses an undisclosed, predetermined amount of mobile data. The Plaintiffs assert AT&T's practice violates several California laws and seek, among other remedies, public injunctive relief, which AT&T's arbitration clause prohibits. AT&T argues that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") preempts California's public policy in favor of public injunctive relief. The district court compelled arbitration in April 2016 and the Appellate Court affirmed in December 2017, rejecting the Plaintiffs' argument that compelling arbitration violated their First Amendment right to petition the government. The Plaintiffs then asked the district court to reconsider because of the California Supreme Court's decision in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., which held that an agreement, like AT&T's, that waives public injunctive relief in any forum is contrary to California public policy and unenforceable. The Plaintiffs, in their motion for reconsideration, argued that McGill's holding provided the district court with a new, intervening basis to deny compelling arbitration. The district court agreed with the Plaintiffs and granted their motion to reconsider and denied, in part, AT&T's motion to compel arbitration. AT&T filed the pending interlocutory appeal. AT&T argues that the panel can resolve the appeal on a procedural issue -- that the district court abused its discretion in reconsidering its initial order compelling arbitration. The Ninth Circuit disagrees, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion. The Ninth Circuit finds that it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that the Plaintiffs should not be penalized for failing to pursue, in their first opposition to compel arbitration, an argument that had been consistently rejected by federal courts, including in similar cases brought by the Plaintiffs' counsel. The district court acknowledged AT&T's argument was "not without basis," but it was nevertheless unpersuaded. Under an abuse of discretion standard, it is the type of decision in which the Appellate Court should give the district court a substantial margin to decide the issue one way or another. Even if the Appellate Court would have decided the issue differently on initial consideration, the district court's decision does not lie "beyond the pale of reasonable justification." Now the Appellate Court considers the merits. The Ninth Circuit recently held in Blair v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc., a case with similar factual and legal issues as the instant case, that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt the McGill rule. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the McGill rule is a generally applicable contract defense derived from long-established California public policy in favor of public injunctive relief, the rule fell within the FAA's saving clause at the first step of the preemption analysis. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit held that the McGill rule does not mandate procedures that interfere with arbitration, namely with arbitration's informality. The arbitration clause in the present case, like the one in Blair, prohibits public injunctive relief in any forum, including arbitration. As discussed previously, such a clause is unenforceable in California under the McGill rule. Because the Ninth Circuit is bound by its decision in Blair, it holds that AT&T's arbitration agreement is unenforceable. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's order denying AT&T's motion to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Feb. 18, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/WjLOY5 from Leagle.com. BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 10 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Baidu, Inc. (BIDU) BIDU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 16, 2019 - April 7, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : June 22, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form?prid=7255&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Baidu, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Baidu's feed services were not in compliance with applicable Chinese regulatory standards; (ii) the foregoing noncompliance subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory enforcement, including the removal or suspension of certain of Baidu's services and products; (iii) accordingly, the Company's revenues derived from online marketing services were unlikely to be sustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Groupon, Inc. (GRPN) GRPN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 4, 2019 - February 18, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : June 29, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/groupon-inc-loss-form?prid=7255&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Groupon, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing fewer customer engagements in its Goods category; (2) Groupon relied on its Goods category to drive its sales, especially during the holiday season; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was likely to experience reduced sales; and (4) 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. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE) LOPE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 5, 2018 - January 27, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/grand-canyon-education-inc-loss-form?prid=7255&wire=1 According to a filed complaint, statements made by Defendants were false and/or misleading because, following Grand Canyon's spin-off of its educational assets as Grand Canyon University ("GCU"): (i) GCU would not be a proper non-profit organization as it would remain under the control of Grand Canyon, and (ii) Grand Canyon would not be a third-party service provider to GCU but rather would continue to effectively operate the entity, and (iii) Grand Canyon employees served as executives of GCU and (iv) GCU functioned as an off-balance-sheet entity to which Grand Canyon would be able to funnel expenses and costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount of revenue, thereby inflating Grand Canyon's financial results. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Leyse TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARK LEYSE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 11-7128 (SDW) (SCM) (D. N.J.), Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (a) granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and (b) dismissed as moot (i) the Defendant's Motion to Strike, (ii) the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, and (iii) the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The case, and two related cases in other jurisdictions, began with a telemarketing phone call on March 11, 2005. DialAmerica Marketing, Inc., on behalf of the Defendant, called the residential telephone line that the Plaintiff shared with his roommate, Genevieve Dutriaux. When the Call was answered, DialAmerica did not have a sales representative available to handle the call and, therefore, played the following prerecorded message: "This call is on behalf of Bank of America at 1-800-201-6872 for telemarketing purposes. We're sorry we missed you and we will try calling back at another time." The Plaintiff was a BoA customer at the time of the Call and had been for nearly a decade. He also worked as an investigator for his counsel of record, Todd C. Bank, at the time of the Call, helping him prepare Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuits. In that role, the Plaintiff called companies to determine, inter alia, the number and frequency of the calls they made. During these investigative calls, the Plaintiff used a false name, withheld the true purpose of the calls, and secretly recorded the calls. He then provided the recordings to Mr. Bank to use in TCPA litigations such as this one. For performing "well over a hundred" investigative calls, the Plaintiff was paid $60 an hour and earned between $40,000 and $75,000. Following the Call, the Plaintiff placed more than 20 calls to DialAmerica; he recorded the calls and provided the recordings to Mr. Bank. During these calls, the Plaintiff used a false name and employer and inquired about the service DialAmerica provided, including the numbers it called, the dialing system it used, the number of recorded messages it left per day, and whether the representatives knew that the March 11th Call violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Notably, when twice asked by DialAmerica representatives if he wanted to be added to their Do-Not-Call list, the Plaintiff declined. The Plaintiff filed the suit on Dec. 5, 2011. The First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") contains a single count for violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff does not allege that he suffered any annoyance or nuisance from the Call and seeks only statutory damages. As the Third Circuit observed in the case, almost seven years ago, rarely has one phone call led to so much litigation. Because the lengthy procedural history of the case (and its related cases) was summarized in the Court's 2016 opinion denying the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court refrains from repeating it. Following prolonged discovery, the Defendant filed, and the parties briefed, the instant motions. The Plaintiff does not assert, nor has he put forward any evidence to show, that he suffered nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience, wasted time, invasion of privacy, or any other such injury. Nor could he, because the record evidence clearly shows that he welcomed such calls in his role as a paid investigator aiding his counsel in the preparation of TCPA lawsuits. No other plausible inference can be drawn from the 20+ follow-up calls he made to DialAmerica, the types of questions he asked DialAmerica's representatives, his use of a false name and employer, his secret recordings of the calls, his submission of those recordings to his counsel, and, especially, his refusal to be added to DialAmerica's Do-Not-Call list when he was twice given the opportunity. On these facts, Judge Wigenton holds no reasonable jury could find that the Plaintiff suffered an Article III injury. Having asserted only a procedural violation that resulted in no harm and no material risk of harm, the Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of establishing the elements of standing and summary judgment is therefore warranted. The Plaintiff has not established that he suffered any nuisance or invasion of privacy, and the record suggests instead that he welcomed and consented to the March 11th Call. In this sense, the Plaintiff had less of an interest in the privacy, peace, and quiet that Congress intended to protect than even the houseguest who picks up an unwanted call -- someone who does not fall under the TCPA's zone of interests. Summary judgment is therefore also warranted for lack of statutory standing. Even if the Plaintiff has standing to litigate his claim, the Defendant is protected from TCPA liability for the March 11th Call under the "established business relationship" exemption. Because the TCPA does not apply to calls made "with the prior express consent of the called party," and an established business relationship effectively establishes consent, the exemption applies in the case under the plain language of the statute and regulation. Summary judgment is therefore warranted, the Court determines. Finally, the "dual-purpose" doctrine does not apply to the abandoned call message that the Plaintiff received. The applicable FCC order discusses dual-purpose calls in the context of "unsolicited advertisements" that contain both customer service and marketing elements. The 2003 FCC Order states that if the call is intended to offer property, goods, or services for sale either during the call, or in the future (such as in response to a message that provides a toll-free number), that call is an advertisement. However, the same order creates an exception for abandoned call messages that provide a number for call recipients to call and make a do-not-call request. The Plaintiff was able to do exactly that—when he called the number in the abandoned call message, he was able to speak to representatives who asked if he wished to make a do-not-call request, which he declined to do. The March 11th Call, therefore, did not violate the TCPA. For the reasons set forth, Judge Wigenton granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Judge dismissed as moot the Defendant's Motion to Strike, the Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/LRo9Ib from Leagle.com. MARK LEYSE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by GREG MICHAEL KOHN -- gkohn@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by DAVID JOHN FIOCCOLA -- dfioccola@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP. BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss RICO-Related Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. 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 motion to dismiss the complaint in the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") related class action suit is pending. Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and various third-parties (these actions were subsequently consolidated), alleging claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf of a putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims submitted by Philidor Rx Services, LLC (Philidor) for certain Company-branded drugs between January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding: (1) the identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the insured's consent to renew the prescription. The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute. A decision on the Company's motion to dismiss this complaint is pending. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Court Approves Settlement in Catucci Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. 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 a Canadian court has approved a settlement between the class members in the Catucci action and the Company's auditors. In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The Company is also aware of two additional putative class actions that were filed with the applicable court but which have not been served on the Company and the factual allegations made in these actions are substantially similar to in the U.S. Securities Litigation. The actions generally allege violations of Canadian provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late as November 16, 2015. Each of these putative class actions, other than the Catucci action in the Quebec Superior Court, has been discontinued. In the Catucci action, on August 29, 2017, the judge granted the plaintiffs leave to proceed with their claims under the Quebec Securities Act and authorized the class proceeding. On October 26, 2017, the plaintiffs issued their Judicial Application Originating Class Proceedings. On April 12, 2018, the Company was served with an application for leave filed in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice to pursue an action under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. This proceeding is captioned BlackRock Asset Management Canada Limited et al. v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 500-11-054155-185). The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the Catucci class action. On June 18, 2018, the same BlackRock entities filed an originating application (Court File No. 500-17-103749-183) against the same defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged misrepresentations. The Company is aware that certain other members of the Catucci class exercised their opt-out rights prior to the June 19, 2018 deadline. On February 15, 2019, one of the entities which exercised its opt-out rights ("CalSTRS") served the Company with an application in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice for leave to pursue an action under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company, certain current or former officers and directors of the Company and its auditor. That proceeding is captioned California State Teachers' Retirement System v. Bausch Health Companies Inc. et al. (Court File No. 500-11-055722-181). The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the Catucci class action and in the BlackRock opt-out proceedings. On that same date, CalSTRS also served the Company with proceedings (Court File No. 500-17-106044-186) against the same defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged misrepresentations. On February 3, 2020, the Quebec Superior Court granted the applications of CalSTRS and BlackRock for leave to pursue their respective actions asserting claims under the Quebec Securities Act. On March 11, 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed applications for leave to appeal from the decision of the Quebec Superior Court. The applications for leave to appeal were scheduled to be heard on June 9, 2020. After a hearing on November 11, 2019, the court approved a settlement in the Catucci action between the class members and the Company's auditors. The Company believes that it has viable defenses in each of these actions. In each case, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Glumetza Class Certification Briefing This Month --------------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. 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 briefing on the motion for class certification in the suit entitled, In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA, is expected to conclude in June 2020. Between August 2019 and February 2020, seven putative antitrust class actions and three (3) non-class complaints were filed in the Northern District of California against the Company, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Santarus, Inc. (among other defendants) (the "California Actions"). In February 2020, an eighth putative class action was filed in the Southern District of Florida; this action was transferred to the Northern District of California. Three of the class actions were filed by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class of direct purchasers. The purported classes of direct purchasers filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 25, 2019. The five class actions filed by end payer purchasers have all been voluntarily dismissed. The three non-class complaints were filed by direct purchasers. These actions have been consolidated and coordinated in In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA. Both class and non-class direct purchaser plaintiffs seek damages under federal antitrust laws. The lawsuits allege that a 2012 settlement of a patent litigation regarding Glumetza(R) delayed generic entry in exchange for an agreement not to launch an authorized generic of Glumetza(R) or grant any other company a license to do so. The complaints allege that the settlement agreement resulted in higher prices for Glumetza(R) and its generic equivalent both prior to and after generic entry. On April 29, 2020, the purported classes of direct purchasers filed their motion for class certification. Briefing on the motion is expected to conclude in June 2020. The Company and its affiliates named in these cases dispute the claims against them and intend to vigorously defend these matters. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Camarena Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- NABOR CAMARENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY; and BOARD OF REGENTS OF BAYLOR UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01436 (N.D. Tex., June 5, 2020) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who have paid tuition and fees for on-campus courses at Baylor University and who have not been refunded a prorated portion thereof after Baylor abruptly closed its doors to students and shifted to substandard online instruction due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19"). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class members are students, families, and student guarantors who paid millions of dollars in tuition and fees at Baylor University and who, as a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts, (i) have not received refunds or reimbursements for the unused services for which they paid; and/or (ii) have not received any refund or reimbursement for the decreased value of the education that Defendants began providing when classes transitioned from in-person instruction to an entirely untested online and less valuable format. The Plaintiff and other Class members have lost the benefits of the education, services, extra-curricular opportunities, and other experiences that the Defendants promised them. Despite failing to fulfill their obligations, the Defendants are currently unlawfully retaining and refusing to fully or partially refund the Plaintiff's tuition and mandatory fees, despite the dramatically lower quality and less valuable education and services the Defendants provided for the second half of the Spring 2020 semester. Baylor University is located in the County of McLennan in the City of Waco in the State of Texas. The University offers degrees in undergraduate and graduate level degree curriculum. The University provides degrees in arts, science, education, engineering, computer science, business, music, nursing, and social work. Baylor serves domestic and international students. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek, Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 Southeast Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and - Glen L. Abramson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: gabramson@bm.net BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Faces 1 S.A.N.T. Insurance Suit in W.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC., et al. The case is styled as 1 S.A.N.T., INC. also known as: 1 SAINT, INC. doing business as: TOWN & COUNTRY doing business as: GATHERINGS BANQUET & EVENT CENTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC., NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00862-WSS (W.D. Pa., June 11, 2020). The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues. Berkshire Hathaway is an American multinational conglomerate holding company headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com BG RETAIL: $175,000 Settlement in Rivas Suit Gets Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Beth Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted final approval of the class settlement in the wage and hour class action, SOPHIA RIVAS, Plaintiff, v. BG RETAIL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-06458-BLF, (N.D. Cal.). Defendants operate a chain of retail footwear stores under the brand name Naturalizer. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly paid Store Manager from approximately April 2011 to December 2015 at the Milpitas, California store location. Plaintiff asserted ten causes of actions under various California labor and business codes. The parties have since agreed on the terms of a Settlement, which include: (1) A Settlement Class defined as: All persons who are or were employed by Defendants in a non-exempt, hourly-paid position in any of Defendants' California Naturalizer retail locations from September 30, 2012 until July 25, 2019. (2) An all-inclusive and non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount of $175,000 (including employer payroll taxes). The Gross Settlement Amount includes: (i) a Remaining Distribution Fund, which will be allocated to all Class Members who do not opt out of the Settlement Class on a pro-rata basis according to the number of weeks each Class Member worked during the Class Period and without the need to submit claims for payment; (ii) attorneys' fees not to exceed $78,750 and litigation costs and expenses not to exceed $20,000 to Plaintiff's Counsel, Capstone Law APC ("Class Counsel"); (iii) settlement administration costs of $6,500, to the court-appointed settlement administrator, ILYM Group, Inc.; and (iv) a class representative service award of $2,500 to Sophia Rivas for her services on behalf of the Settlement Class. The average estimated payment is $170.59, the lowest is $0.37, and the highest is $952.26. On review, the Court concludes that the Settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable. Most importantly, there is no indication of collusion because the Settlement is a result of post-discovery, arm's-length negotiations between experienced counsel with guidance from Judge Spero. The Court also finds the amount offered in settlement to be fair and adequate, despite the modest recovery. Based on the information and evidence produced by Defendants during discovery, including a sample of time and wage records, Plaintiff's Counsel calculated Defendants' maximum potential exposure for the claims at issue, which are summarized in the table below: A full-text copy of the District Court's January 16, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rgnftdj from Leagle.com Sophia Rivas, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bevin Elaine Allen Pike - Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Eduardo Santos - Eduardo.Santos@CapstoneLawyers.com - Capstone Law APC, Andrew Joseph Sokolowski - asokolowski@maternlawgroup.com - Matern Law Group, PC & Orlando Jose Villalba - Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com - Capstone Law, APC. BG Retail, LLC, dba Naturalizer, a Delaware limited liability company & Caleres, Inc., dba Naturalizer, A new York corporation, Defendants, represented by Michael John Hassen - mjhassen@reallaw.us - Reallaw, APC. BLUE MOON: Keller Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Dancers, Entertainers ------------------------------------------------------------------ AARIN KELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE MOON, SAMIR YONO, VALERIE YONO, VANESSA BANDA, DOE MANAGERS 1-3, AND DOES 4-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01200-MTL (D. Ariz., June 16, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, charging illegal kickbacks in form of monetary fees to Defendants and other Blue Moon employees who did not work in positions that are customarily and regularly tipped, and illegally absconding with Plaintiff's tips. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an exotic dancer/entertainer at Blue Moon located at 2911 E Van Buren Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85008 since 2017. Blue Moon is an adult entertainment club with its principal place of business at 2911 E Van Buren Street, Phoenix, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 N. 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 328-0262 E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com - and - Leigh Montgomery, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 E-mail: leigh@hughesellzey.com - and - Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 E-mail: jesenia@kristensenlaw.com BROOKDALE SENIOR: Ruling in Callahan Suit Appealed to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Intervenor Mishelle Neverson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Carolyn Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-10726-VAP-SS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought over alleged employment discriminatory practices. The appellate case is captioned as Carolyn Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-55603, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Mishelle Neverson's opening brief is due on August 13, 2020; -- Appellees BKD Personal Assistance Services, LLC, BKD Twenty-One Management Company, Inc., Brookdale Employee Services Corporate, LLC, Brookdale Employee Services, LLC, Brookdale Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., Brookdale Vehicle Holding, LLC, Carolyn D. Callahan, Does, Emeritus Corporation and Summerville at Atherton Court, LLC's answering brief is due on September 14, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Movant-Appellant MISHELLE NEVERSON, Proposed Intervenor, is represented by: Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq. Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Ryan Wu, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 E-mail: Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com Bevin.Pike@CapstoneLawyers.com Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com Plaintiff-Appellee CAROLYN D. CALLAHAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Andranik Tsarukyan, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: andy.tsarukyan@jacksonlewis.com - and - Armen Zenjiryan, Esq. REMEDY LAW GROUP LLP 610 East Providencia Avenue Burbank, CA 91501-2495 Telephone: (818) 422-5941 E-mail: armen@remedylawgroup.com Defendants-Appellees BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation, BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE SERVICES CORPORATE, LLC, a Delaware corporation, SUMMERVILLE AT ATHERTON COURT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, BROOKDALE VEHICLE HOLDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, BKD PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, EMERITUS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, BKD TWENTY-ONE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation, and BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by: Shannon Rea Boyce, Esq. John Kevin Lilly, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 712-7304 E-mail: sboyce@littler.com klilly@littler.com - and - Jeffrey Joseph Mann, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 E-mail: jmann@littler.com BST & CO: Patient Files Class Action Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Chelsea Diana, writing for Albany Business Review, reports that a Community Care Physicians patient has filed a proposed class action complaint against the accounting firm BST & Co. after data was stolen in a data breach late last year. The lawsuit was filed in state Supreme Court in Albany County last month on behalf of lead plaintiff Elmer Robert Keach III, an attorney from Albany. Attorneys from Chaffin Luhana LLP and Mason Lietz & Klinger LLP are seeking a class action status for the suit, which has not yet been certified. Mason Lietz & Klinger specialize in representing plaintiffs in class actions throughout the U.S. BST & Co. was hit with a ransomware attack on Dec. 7 that exposed the data of some of its accounting and tax service clients, including the medical group Community Care Physicians. The company revealed the attack in an advisory sent to media in February, along with letters sent to Community Care patients affected by the attack. Community Care is the region's third-largest physician group. BST found the files accessed in the attack contained some personal information of patients, including names, dates of birth, medical record numbers, medical billing codes and insurance descriptions. Patient medical records and Social Security numbers were not exposed. After analyzing what data was pulled from the attack, BST mailed notice letters on Feb. 14 to the patients of Community Care that had information accessed or acquired as a result of the attack. The class action suit alleges the ransomware attack was a result of BST's failure to implement adequate cybersecurity procedures to protect private information. As a result of the attack, the lawsuit says class members have been exposed to a heightened risk of fraud and identity theft. The lawsuit said BST should have notified patients about the Dec. 7 attack sooner than Feb. 14. It also says BST did not do enough to protect those whose data was stolen following the ransomware attack. "Defendant BST has merely offered identity monitoring services for a paltry 12 months to 'potentially impacted individuals,'" the lawsuit said. "The offer is wholly inadequate as it fails to provide for the fact that victims of Ransomware Attacks and other unauthorized disclosures commonly face multiple years of ongoing identity theft and it entirely fails to provide any compensation for the unauthorized release and disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members'." Community Care was not named in the lawsuit. It is not clear how many Community Care customers were impacted in the attack, or what the effect may have been on BST's other customers. A spokesman for BST said the firm does not comment on pending litigation. [GN] BUTTERFIELD CATERING: Juarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Miguel Angel Maldonado Juarez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BUTTERFIELD CATERING INC. (D/B/A BUTTERFIELD KITCHEN), EVAN SCOTT OBSTANZ, DIEGO DOE, CHRIS DOE, and JOEL DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04537 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2020), is brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that he worked, according to the complaint. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. Plaintiff Maldonado was employed as a cook at the Defendants' cafe. The Defendants own, operate, or control a cafe and catering service, located in New York City under the name "Butterfield Kitchen."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 C.S.T. CO: Shoemaker Finds Collection Letter "Aggressive" --------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SHOEMAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.S.T. Co. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00436-DJH (W.D. Ky., June 17, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices. Plaintiff has a debt obligation that was allegedly incurred to the creditor Sonitrol of Louisville. According to the complaint, Sonitrol of Louisville contacted Defendant CST to collect the alleged debt. Defendant CST consequently sent Plaintiff an initial contact notice on or about July 1, 2019. However, the letter threatens and harasses Plaintiff of legal proceedings if payment is not made immediately. Plaintiff claims that he has been damaged by Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and false debt collection practices. C.S.T. Co. is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com CALOP BUSINESS: Kimm Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Kimm, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CALOP BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC. dba CALOP AEROGROUND SERVICES, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22191 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 11, 2020), seeks penalties under the California Labor Code due to unpaid minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants failed to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiff for all hours worked, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff was required to work more than 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. The Defendants failed to provide the requisite uninterrupted meal and rest periods to the Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees at least minimum wage for all hours worked. The Defendants failed to properly compensate the Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees pursuant to California law in order to increase the Defendants' profits. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants at their offices in Los Angeles County, California. CALOP is a California corporation operating and doing business in the City of Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel Glaser, Esq. JOEL GLASER, APC 11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (310) 943-8005 Facsimile: (310) 295-1831 Email: ioel@glaserlaw.org - and - Darren Le Montree, Esq. DBL LAW GROUP 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (818) 274-3080 Fax: (818) 450-0806 Email: dlemontree@dbllawgroup.com CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Fails to Give Apt Housing Services, Longo Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Longo, Lois Spatz, and Raina Pomeroy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01363-WFJ-AEP (M.D. Fla., June 12, 2020), is brought on behalf of a class of persons, who executed Housing Contracts with the Defendant but are not receiving the bargained-for services. According to the complaint, the purpose of the parties' Housing Contract was to provide housing and services, including dorm activities, and access to the dorm's common areas and computer lab. As the Defendant's promotional materials stated, the amenities included on-site group study lounge, "organized resident activities through our Students First Residence Life program," free printing, shuttle services to the campus, swimming pools, game rooms, fitness centers and "sophisticated roommate matching program." In short, the purpose of the contract was to provide dormitory living, with all of the services and amenities advertised. This purpose was frustrated when the campus closed, and students were ordered home no longer attending on-campus classes. Defendant Campus Advantage, Inc., is one of the largest property managers for private dormitory housing near college campuses in the country, including the University of Central Florida ("UCF"), where Plaintiff Joseph Longo's son, Plaintiff Lois Spatz's son, and Plaintiff Raina Pomeroy's son are students and residents in the Defendant's "Northgate Lakes" dorm and "The Verge," respectively. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, universities throughout Florida and the nation have ordered that the university campuses be vacated to preserve the safety of the students and the public. The university-run facilities that students have been asked to evacuate include dormitories similar in physical layout to the facilities operated by the Defendant, which were recognized as unsafe due to the elevated risk of disease transmission inherent to high-density housing with extensive shared common areas. Furthermore, these universities, recognizing that it would be inequitable and improper to charge students for housing that became unsafe to occupy, have been refunding housing money to students and their families. In contrast to the responsible actions of the universities, the Defendant, who touts themselves as "student housing management experts" is retaining all funds that their tenants have paid--and continues to demand payment from those who pay month-to-month--for room, board, and other services and amenities, even though the Defendant cannot safely provide them and the students have moved out, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are guarantors and co-signers for their son's room at Northgate Lakes and The Verge. The Defendant operates at least seven "off-campus student housing" locations in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amanda J. Allen, Esq. William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq. Heather H. Jones, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 4030 Henderson Boulevard Tampa, FL 33629 Phone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com CANTEEN 82 INC: Underpays Chefs, Chen Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------- SHI MING CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CANTEEN 82 INC. d/b/a Canteen 82; STEAM NOODLE HOUSE INC. d/b/a Steam; STEAMER DUMPLING HOUSE INC. d/b/a Steamer Restaurant; ALLEN LI; YEH P. CHING; and SONG ZHENG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04324 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Chen was employed by the Defendants as chef. Canteen 82 Inc. d/b/a Canteen 82 is a Connecticut corporation engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 CAPITAL ONE: Class Action Waiver Valid, Court Rules --------------------------------------------------- BloombergLaw reports that a federal district court in Virginia ruled in a consolidated opinion that two former Capital One Services LLC employees -- one suing for age discrimination and the other for unpaid overtime -- can't pursue their separate lawsuits on behalf of other workers. Each employee executed a severance agreement when they were terminated that expressly waived the right to pursue class litigation or arbitration, but didn't waive their right to sue individually under the ADEA or FLSA, the court said, and the agreements were valid because nothing in either law prevents such waivers. [GN] CARGILL: Faces Class Action Over Domestic Beef Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------- Jacqui Fatka, writing for Beef, reports that the nation's four largest beef packers -- Tyson, Cargill, JBS USA and National Beef -- are again in the spotlight for potential cattle market manipulation as a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota by Central Grocers. Both the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently launched investigations into whether the meat companies unlawfully fixed domestic beef prices. Although DOJ has not yet publicly confirmed its investigation, news sources reported June 4 that the DOJ Antitrust Division sent a civil investigative demand to each of the same defendants seeking information about their pricing practices. "While these investigations apparently were triggered most immediately by a spike in beef prices since the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S., this spike is only one manifestation of defendants' conspiracy," the court document stated. The class action lawsuit alleges that the companies -- which sold approximately 80% of the more than 25 million lb. of fresh and frozen beef supplied to the U.S. market -- conspired to constrain beef supplies since at least the start of 2015. "The existence of a conspiracy among the defendants was confirmed by at least one account by a confidential witness ('witness 1')," the court document noted. "Witness 1, who was previously employed by one of the defendants, has confirmed that each of the defendants expressly agreed to reduce its cattle purchase and slaughter volumes with the purpose and effect of increasing their margins. Transactional data and slaughter volume records reported by defendants, information published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and defendants' public calls for industry-wide slaughter and capacity reductions corroborate witness 1's account." The class action lawsuit claims that the beef processing companies "engaged in tactics -- including purchasing fewer cattle than a competitive market would otherwise demand and running their processing plants at less than available capacity" -- that created surpluses in the cattle market and shortages in the wholesale beef market, which in turn, drove down the prices the companies paid for cattle and boosted the prices they could command for beef. The lawsuit claims that the defendants conspired by routinely exchanging supply, pricing and other sensitive information. This also included routinely selling beef to each other and holding frequent meetings of each other's executives and key employees. "Starting in 2015, wholesale beef prices showed unusual trends. The per-pound price of cattle had historically stayed within 20-40 cents of the per-pound average wholesale price of beef," the lawsuit points out. According to data from USDA's Economic Research Service, the average spread between the average farm value of cattle and the wholesale value of beef was substantially higher from January 2015 to the present than it was in the preceding five years: From 2010 through 2014, the average farm-to-wholesale spread was about $34, but from 2015 through 2018, it was about $54 -- a 59% increase, the court filing stated. The class action details that the "conspiracy" allowed the companies to enlarge their operating margins throughout the period. By the end of 2018, Tyson and JBS were reporting record margins in their beef business. Tyson reported an operating margin of nearly 7%, almost double its 2014 operating margin. JBS reported a beef business increase of 10.2%. "Given these swollen margins, it is no surprise that a leading industry reporter remarked that defendants 'no longer compete against each other,' enabling them to reap 'gangbuster profits,'" the class action lawsuit claims. The witness identified in the lawsuit worked for one of the defendants as a quality assurance officer at its slaughter plants in the Texas Panhandle/western Kansas region for more than 10 years until his employment ended in 2018. During multiple discussions at the slaughter plant over the class action period, the fabrication manager explained to the witness that all of the defendants had agreed to reduce their purchase of fed cattle and slaughter volume. "In particular, the fabrication manager, during one conversation, even described defendants' arrangement as an agreement to reduce their purchase and slaughter volumes," the court document says. The witness asked the fabrication manager whether the number of kills was also being reduced in other defendants' plants, to which the fabrication manager answered: "Yes, they are. We have had that agreement that we don't kill while prices are up for a while." The court document states, "Witness 1 remembers that the fabrication manager used the word 'agreement' in his answer and that he was referring to all of defendants' plants in the panhandle region -- in particular, Tyson's in Amarillo, Texas; JBS's in Cactus, Texas; Cargill's in Friona, Texas, and National Beef's in Liberal, Kan. Each of these plants provides at least 20% of each defendant's cattle slaughter capacity." The witness noted that the slaughter plant had a slaughtering capacity of 5,500-6,000 head per day but sometimes dropped its kill level to around 4,800-5,200 head per day when implementing the defendant's agreement. "In a beef market free of collusion, if a competitor reduces its purchase of cattle, other competitors quickly pick up the slack to boost their sales and increase their market shares. In that environment, a competitor would not cut its purchases and suffer lost sales with any hope of increasing its profit margin. Only colluding meat packers would expect to benefit by reducing their purchases and slaughter of cattle. By concertedly slashing their supply output, defendants have been able to expand their profit margins, confident that none of them would grab volume surrendered by another," the class action alleges. Daniel Karon, legal counsel in the class action lawsuit who operates Karon LLC, his own firm in Cleveland, Ohio, said it is important for companies to be held accountable for their actions. "Price fixing destroys the integrity of the marketplace," Karon said. "It results in buyers overpaying for products. The marketplace needs to be fair for buyers and sellers who want fair treatment. The antitrust laws exist to encourage fairness over greed." Karon noted that the lawsuit seeks triple damages based on the return of class members' overcharges resulting from the defendants' alleged conspiracy. A Cargill spokesman responded that the company has no official statement at this time. The other companies named did not respond to requests for comment. [GN] CARNIVAL CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Carnival Corporation (NYSE:CCL) between January 28, 2020 and May 1, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Carnival securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Carnival 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) the Company's medics reported increasing events of COVID-19 illness on the Company's ships; (2) Carnival had violated port of call regulations by concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19 infections onboard its ships; (3) in responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow the Company's 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. 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." In that article, it was 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 its knowledge that the threat posed by COVID-19 had materialized on its ships and was likely to proliferate further. 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. Then, on May 1, 2020, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled "Cruise Ships Set Sail Knowing the Deadly Risk to Passengers and Crew." That article detailed how cruise ships, particularly Carnival ships, facilitated the spread of COVID-19, and provided new facts on early warning signs Carnival and its affiliated cruise lines possessed and the Company's disclosure failures. Further, the article also noted that The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure had requested documents from Carnival related "to Covid-19 or other infectious disease outbreaks aboard cruise ships" and that testimony from a separate investigation in Australia revealed that Carnival and its affiliated cruise lines may have misled shore officials by concealing those exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms before docking. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.97 per share from a prior close of $15.90 per share to close at $13.93 per share on May 1, 2020. If you purchased Carnival securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/carnivalcorporation-ccl-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-274/apply/ contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. 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. 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. 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. Contact: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com Tel: (877) 779-1414 E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] CARNIVAL CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 27 Motion Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Carnival Corporation & Plc (NYSE: CCL, CUK) and Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Carnival Corporation & Plc (NYSE: CCL, CUK) Class Period: September 26, 2019 to May 1, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020 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." In that article, it was 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 its knowledge that the threat posed by COVID-19 had materialized on its ships and was likely to proliferate further. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.53 per share, to close at $11.85 per share on April 16, 2020. Then, on May 1, 2020, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled "Cruise Ships Set Sail Knowing the Deadly Risk to Passengers and Crew." That article detailed how cruise ships, particularly Carnival ships, facilitated the spread of COVID-19, and provided new facts on early warning signs Carnival and its affiliated cruise lines possessed and the Company's disclosure failures. Further, the article also noted that the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure had requested documents from Carnival related "to Covid-19 or other infectious disease outbreaks aboard cruise ships" and that testimony from a separate investigation in Australia revealed that Carnival and its affiliated cruise lines may have misled shore officials by concealing those exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms before docking. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.97 per share, to close at $13.93 per share on May 1, 2020. The complaint, filed on May 27, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's medics reported increasing events of COVID-19 illness on the Company's ships; (2) Carnival had violated port of call regulations by concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19 infections onboard its ships; (3) in responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow the Company's 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. For more information on the Carnival securities class action go to: https://bespc.com/CCL Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) Class Period: April 5, 2020 to May 5, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 3, 2020 On April 5, 2020, Wells Fargo announced that it had received strong interest in the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), a program under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the "CARES Act"), and was targeting to distribute a total of $10 billion to small business customers under the requirements of the PPP. On April 8, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced that it would allow Wells Fargo to exceed the asset cap that it had imposed on Wells Fargo in 2018 after revelations that the Company had opened millions of accounts in customers' names without their permission, a change which would allow Wells Fargo to make additional small business loans as part of the PPP. That same day, Wells Fargo issued a press release stating, in relevant part, that, "beginning immediately, in response to the actions by the Federal Reserve, [Wells Fargo] will expand its participation in the [PPP] and offer loans to a broader set of its small business and nonprofit customers subject to the terms of the program." On April 19, 2020, after at least one lawsuit was filed against the Company, reports emerged that Wells Fargo may have unfairly allocated government-backed loans under the PPP. For example, USA Today reported that "[t]he lawsuit filed on behalf of small business owners on Sunday alleges that Wells Fargo unfairly prioritized businesses seeking large loan amounts, while the government's small business agency has said that PPP loan applications would be processed on a first-come, first-served basis." According to the lawsuit, "[t]he move by Wells Fargo meant that the bank would receive millions more dollars in processing fees," and, "[m]aking matters worse, Wells Fargo concealed from the public that it was reshuffling the PPP applications it received and prioritizing the applications that would make the bank the most money." Following this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell more than 5% over two trading days to close at $26.84 per share on April 21, 2020. Finally, on May 5, 2020, Wells Fargo filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission, disclosing, in addition to multiple PPP-related lawsuits initiated against the Company, that Wells Fargo had "received formal and informal inquiries from federal and state governmental agencies regarding its offering of PPP loans." Following this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell by more than 6% over two trading days from its closing price on May 4, 2020, closing at $25.61 per share on May 6, 2020. The complaint, filed on June 4, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Wells Fargo's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, 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. For more information on the Wells Fargo class action go to: https://bespc.com/WFC-2 About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] CARNIVAL CORP: Klein Law Notes of July 27 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Carnival Corporation & Plc (NYSE: CCL) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: September 26, 2019 and May 1, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020 Learn more about your recoverable losses in DNK: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/carnival-corporation-loss-submission-form?id=7334&from=5 The filed complaint alleges that Carnival Corporation & Plc made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose 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. Shareholders have until July 27, 2020 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For additional information about the CCL lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Contact: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 Web site: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/ [GN] CARRIZO (MARCELLUS): Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Slamon Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant CALLON (MARCELLUS) LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Janie Slamon, et al. v. Carrizo (Marcellus) LLC, et al., Case No. 3-16-cv-02187, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff James Slamon claims that he and other similarly situated individuals were paid royalties on their oil and gas leases that were improperly calculated by Defendants, Reliance Marcellus II LLC, Reliance Holdings USA, Inc. On October 3, 2016, Slamon filed a five-count Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, seeking declaratory relief for breach of the terms of the Lease (Count I) and alleging breach of contract (Count II) breach of contract through a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count III) and breach of fiduciary duty (Count IV) and requesting an accounting (Count V). The appellate case is captioned as Janie Slamon, et al. v. Carrizo (Marcellus) LLC, et al., Case No. 20-8027, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JANIE SLAMON, as Executrix of the Estate of James Slamon, and ERIC LEWIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net - and - Gerard M. Karam, Esq. MAZZONI KARAM PETORAK & VALVANO 321 Spruce Street, Bank Towers, Suite 201 Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 348-0776 - and - Peter H. LeVan, Jr., Esq. LEVAN LAW GROUP 130 North 18th Street One Logan Square, 27th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 561-1500 E-mail: plevan@levanlawgroup.com Defendant-Petitioner CALLON (MARCELLUS) LLC, FKA Carrizo (Marcellus) LLC is represented by: David R. Fine, Esq. Amy L. Groff, Esq. K&L GATES 17 North Second Street, 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 231-5820 E-mail: david.fine@klgates.com amy.groff@klgates.com Defendants-Respondents RELIANCE HOLDINGS USA INC, BKV OPERATING LLC, RELIANCE MARCELLUS II LLC, and BKV CHELSEA LLC are represented by: Alex G. Mahfood, Esq. Justin H. Werner, Esq. REED SMITH 225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-3158 E-mail: amahfood@reedsmith.com jwerner@reedsmith.com - and - Jeff H. Grant, Esq. John J. Shaeffer, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 228-4483 E-mail: jgrant@foxrothschild.com jshaeffer@foxrothschild.com - and - William A. Rudy, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD 1225 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 446-3868 E-mail: wrudy@foxrothschild.com CASPER SLEEP: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, continues its an investigation on behalf of Casper Sleep Inc. ("Casper" or the "Company") (NYSE: CSPR) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws. If you suffered a loss on your Casper 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/casper-sleep-inc/.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. In February 2020, the Company completed its initial public offering ("IPO"), in which it sold 8.35 million shares of common stock for $12 per share. On April 21, 2020, Casper announced that it was decreasing the size of its global operations and sales team, as well as completely winding down its European operations, amounting to a loss of 21% of its workforce. The Company also stated that Gregory Macfarlane had resigned from his positions as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer. On May 12, 2020, the Company announced its first quarter 2020 financial results, reporting a net loss of $34.5 million (a 98% increase year over year) and an adjusted EBITDA loss of $22.9 million (a 60% increase year over year). Since the IPO, Casper's share price has traded as low as $6.37 per share, or about 47% below the $12 IPO price. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Casper should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. About GPM Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP -- http://www.glancylaw.com-- is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] CASPER SLEEP: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Casper Sleep Inc. (NYSE: CSPR) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about February 7, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Casper investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Casper class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1871.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Specifically, the lawsuit claims the Offering Documents made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather than growing; (2) Casper was changing an important distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) Casper was holding a glut of old and outdated mattress inventory that it was selling at steeply discounted clearance prices, further impairing the Company's profitability; (4) Casper was suffering accelerating losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows and profitability out of reach; (5) Casper's core operations were not profitable, but were causing the Company to suffer over $40 million in negative cash flows during the first quarter of 2020 alone and doubling its quarterly net loss year over year; (6) as a result of the foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve profitability, implement its growth initiatives, and expand internationally had been misrepresented in the Offering Documents, as the Company needed to shutter its European operations, halt all international expansion, jettison over one fifth of its global corporate workforce, and significantly curtail new store openings in order to avoid an imminent cash and liquidity crisis, let alone achieve positive operating cash flows; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1871.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact the firm. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Web site: www.rosenlegal.com [GN] CASPER SLEEP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 10 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Casper Sleep Inc. (NYSE: CSPR) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about February 7, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Casper investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Casper class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1871.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Specifically, the lawsuit claims the Offering Documents made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather than growing; (2) Casper was changing an important distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) Casper was holding a glut of old and outdated mattress inventory that it was selling at steeply discounted clearance prices, further impairing the Company's profitability; (4) Casper was suffering accelerating losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows and profitability out of reach; (5) Casper's core operations were not profitable, but were causing the Company to suffer over $40 million in negative cash flows during the first quarter of 2020 alone and doubling its quarterly net loss year over year; (6) as a result of the foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve profitability, implement its growth initiatives, and expand internationally had been misrepresented in the Offering Documents, as the Company needed to shutter its European operations, halt all international expansion, jettison over one fifth of its global corporate workforce, and significantly curtail new store openings in order to avoid an imminent cash and liquidity crisis, let alone achieve positive operating cash flows; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1871.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Murphy Sues Over Telescope Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- SIGURD MURPHY and KEITH UEHARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC; NANTONG SCHMIDT OPTO-ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO. LTD.; OLIVON MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.; OLIVON USA, LLC; SKY-WATCHER CANADA; SKY-WATCHER USA; SUZHOU SYNTA OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; SW TECHNOLOGY CORP.; SYNTA CANADA INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTD.; and SYNTA TECHNOLOGY CORP. OF TAIWAN, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-04049 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and for violations of the Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2, the Clayton Act Section 7, state antitrust laws, and state consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in anticompetitive agreements and price-fixing conspiracy in the telescope market. The Defendants agreed to, and did in fact, act in restraint of trade or commerce by affecting, fixing, controlling and/or maintaining, at artificial and non-competitive levels, the prices at which telescopes were sold, distributed or obtained in the United States and took efforts to conceal their agreements from the Plaintiffs and Class members. The Defendants' unlawful conduct had the following effects: (1) telescope price competition was restrained, suppressed, and eliminated throughout the United States; (2) telescope prices were raised, fixed, maintained, and stabilized at artificially high levels throughout the country; (3) the Plaintiffs and Class members were deprived of free and open competition; and (4) the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class paid supra-competitive, artificially inflated prices for telescopes during the period from and including January 1, 2005 through August 31, 2019. Celestron Acquisition, LLC is a corporation that manufactures, markets, and sells telescopes, with its principal place of business at 2835 Columbia Street Torrance, California. Nantong Schmidt Opto-Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. is a telescope manufacturing company located in Nantong, China. Olivon Manufacturing Co. Ltd. is a Canadian corporation that manufactures, markets, and sells telescopes, with its principal place of business at 11880 Hammersmith Way, Richmond, British Columbia. Olivon USA, LLC is a corporation that manufactures, markets, and sells telescopes, with its principal place of business at 701 S Carson Street, Suite 200 200, Carson City, Nevada. Sky-Watcher Canada is a Canadian corporation that manufactures, markets, and sells telescopes, with its principal place of business at 11880 Hammersmith Way, Richmond, British Columbia. Sky-Watcher USA is an American corporation that manufactures, markets, and sells telescopes, with its principal place of business at 475 Alaska Avenue, Torrance, California. Suzhou Synta Optical Technology Co., Ltd. is a telescope manufacturing company located in Suzhou, China. SW Technology Corp. is a corporation that manufactures, markets, and sells telescopes, with its principal place of business at 2835 Columbia Street Torrance, California. Synta Canada International Enterprises Ltd. is a Canadian corporation that manufactures, markets, and sells telescopes, with its principal place of business at 4035 Williams Road, Richmond, British Columbia. Synta Technology Corp. of Taiwan is a seller of telescopes headquartered in Taiwan. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co. Ltd. is a Chinese corporation that manufactures, markets, and sells telescopes, with its principal place of business at 199 An Shan Lu, Yuyao, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Adam J. Zapala, Esq. Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. James G.B. Dallal, Esq. Reid W. Gaa, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com azapala@cpmlegal.com ecastillo@cpmlegal.com jdallal@cpmlegal.com rgaa@cpmlegal.com CENTURYLINK INC: Fails to Protect Customers' PII, Woodard Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Noel U. Woodard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTURYLINK, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00917 (W.D. Wash., June 12, 2020), is brought against CenturyLink for its failure to protect its customers' personally identifiable information. CenturyLink maintains personally identifiable information ("PII") of its customers, including customers' names, email addresses, phone numbers, physical addresses, and other account-specific information and the contents of their email correspondence (e.g., account numbers, logs of communications with CenturyLink, etc.). As of at least November 17, 2018, CenturyLink stored some or all of the PII it maintained in a single database. On September 15, 2019, security researcher Bob Diachenko discovered that the Database "was made publicly available such that no authentication was required to access it" (the "Data Breach"). Although "Diachenko notified CenturyLink" of the Data Breach that same day, "the database had already been exposed for many months"--approximately 10 months in total, the Plaintiff says. "This would have given malicious parties more than ample time to use the data in various schemes." At the time the Data Breach was discovered, the Database contained more than 2.8 million records of consumer PII in total. CenturyLink's failures to adopt, implement, maintain, and enforce proper data security policies and procedures resulted in the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' PII being improperly exposed and disclosed to unauthorized third parties, says the complaint. Plaintiff Woodard is a natural person and resident and citizen of King County, Washington. CenturyLink is a global technology company "that provides residential, business, and enterprise customers with a variety of products and services, including internet, phone, cable TV, cloud solutions, and security."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa A. Huelsman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MELISSA A. HUELSMAN. P.S. 705 Second Avenue, Suite 606 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 447-0103 Facsimile: (206) 673-8220 Email: mhuelsman@predatorylendinglaw.com paralegal@predatorylendinglaw.com - and - Marc E. Dann, Esq. DANN LAW P.O. Box 6031040 Cleveland, OH 44103 Phone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 Email: mdann@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Office: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 Email: tom@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com CHANGE.ORG INC: Sued by Randall in Calif. for Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Change.org, Inc. The case is styled as Sean D. Randall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Change.org, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-03863-JSC (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Change.org is a petition website operated by for-profit Change.org, Inc., an American certified B corporation which claims to have over 240 million users and hosts sponsored campaigns for organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Benjamin Salgado, III, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 333-4103 Fax: (205) 930-9989 Email: rsalgado@davisnorris.com - and - Andrew Wheeler-Berliner, Esq. Dargan Maner Ware, Esq. John Edward Norris, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 765-7324 Email: andrew@davisnorris.com dware@davisnorris.com jnorris@davisnorris.com CHASE BANK: Final Approval Hrg. of $240K Chen Deal Set for June 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The parties in the case JEFFREY CHEN, Plaintiff, v. CHASE BANK USA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01082-JSC, (N.D. Cal.) are set to appear before the Northern California District Court on June 25, 2020 for a final approval hearing of their proposed class action settlement. Plaintiff Jeffrey Chen commenced the class action against Chase Bank USA, N.A. (now J.P. Morgan Chase) ("Chase") in the Superior Court of State of California, County of Alameda on January 28, 2019, alleging violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA") under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1691 et seq. Chase removed the action to the California District Court because the action arises under ECOA, a federal law. Plaintiff applied for a credit card issued by Chase. In September 2018, Chase sent Plaintiff a letter denying his credit application stating that Chase "can't approve your request at this time because: Previous unsatisfactory relationship with this bank." Plaintiff alleges that Chase's denial of his credit application constitutes an "adverse action" for which a "statement of specific reasons for the action taken" or a "disclosure of the applicant's right to a statement of specific reasons" is required within 30 days of receiving Plaintiff's credit application. Plaintiff insists that the letter he received fails to meet the "specific reason" requirement under the ECOA and does not disclose the specific reasons for which Plaintiff's application was denied. Upon engaging in negotiations, the parties reached a settlement in principle in August 2019. They ultimately obtained preliminary approval of the settlement in mid-January 2020, a copy of which Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/up6mb2e from Leagle.com. Under the January 2020 Order, the Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class, for settlement purposes only: All natural persons to whom Chase sent a letter giving either previous unsatisfactory relationship with this bank or previous unsatisfactory relationship with us or one of our affiliates as the only reason for taking an adverse action in connection with a credit card account during the period beginning January 28, 2014 and ending on November 22, 2019. The class is comprised of approximately 18,183 persons. The following individuals are excluded from the Settlement Class: officers and directors of Chase and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and any entity in which Chase has a controlling interest; and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members. Ray E. Gallo and Gallo LLP and Alexander Darr and Darr Law LLC are appointed as Class Counsel. Under the proposed Settlement, Chase agrees to pay $244,659 for: "(1) payments to the Settlement Class, (2) a Class Representative Incentive Award of up to $5,000, and (3) Notice and Settlement Administration Costs." The Settlement Class Consideration is "non-reversionary." The settlement administration costs are estimated at $50,102. Assuming the $5,000 class representative incentive award and the $50,102 administration costs, the net settlement class consideration will be $189,557, or, $10.42 per settlement class member if all settlement class members were to submit a valid claim form. In addition to the Settlement Class Consideration, "Plaintiff's counsel will move for attorneys' fees and costs of up to $185,000, to be paid by Chase." The Court will also enjoin Chase, for five years from the date of final approval, from using the phrases "'previous unsatisfactory relationship with this bank' and 'previous unsatisfactory relationship with us or one of our affiliates' in adverse action notices as the sole reason for denying credit card applications or otherwise taking an adverse action in connection with a Chase credit card account." Jeffrey Chen, Plaintiff, represented by Dominic R. Valerian - dominic@valerian.law - Valerian Law, P.C., Ray Edwin Gallo - rgallo@gallo.law - Gallo LLP & Alexander Darr , Darr Law LLC, 1391 W 5th Avenue, Suite 313, Columbus, OH 43212 Chase Bank USA, N.A., Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Soukup - asoukup@cov.com - Covington and Burling LLP, pro hac vice, Eric C. Bosset - ebosset@cov.com - Covington, pro hac vice & Matthew Quinn Verdin - mverdin@cov.com - Covington & Burling LLP. CHEYENNE MEDICAL: Lilly Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts ------------------------------------------------------------- Angelia Lilly, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Cheyenne Medical LLC, d/b/a Thrive Cannabis Marketplace, Case No. 2:20-cv-01051 (D. Nev., June 12, 2020), is brought for damages resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant in negligently placing unsolicited automated text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant has violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to bombard consumers' mobile phones with non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior express written consent, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff did not give the Defendant prior express written consent to send its unwelcomed marketing text messages to her cellular telephone number by using an automatic telephone dialing system. The Plaintiff is an individual, who resided in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Defendant is a source for marijuana, marijuana products & accessories and marijuana information in Southern Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Phone: 800.400.6808 Facsimile: 800.520.5523 Email: gustavo@kazlg.com CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Class Action Over Pricing ------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that The Children's Place is fooling customers into thinking its sales contain more of a discount than they actually do, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Elaine Dougan filed her case in Seattle federal court on May 30, acting as a private attorney general and/or the lead plaintiff in a proposed class. The lawsuit seeks damages under the Consumer Protection Act. Her lawyers at Hattis & Lukacs say they've been monitoring the chain's pricing since 2014. They say they have time-stamped screenshots of more than six million daily offerings for more than 53,000 products. Their research "shows that The Children's Place's advertised website-wide 'sale' events and advertised percentage-off and dollar discounts were false, and that its list prices (i.e., reference prices) from which the discounts were calculated were false and inflated," the lawsuit says. "For the majority of its products, The Children's Place never offered the products at the list price -- not even for a single day. For the rest of its products, The Children's Place very rarely offered the products at the list price (e.g., typically less than ten percent of the time)." [GN] CHISHOLM ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime to Consultants, Pogue Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, KELLY POGUE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CHISHOLM ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00580 (D.N.M., June 15, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant suffered or permitted Plaintiff, and the other workers like him, to work far more than 40 hours each week. But Defendant misclassified these workers as independent contractors and paid them a daily rate with no overtime pay. Pogue worked for Chisholm as a Drilling Consultant from approximately July of 2017 until December of 2019. Chisholm Energy Holdings, LLC is an oil and gas company focused on acquisition and development of petroleum properties in the Delaware Basin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com CHOICE HOTELS: DiFlavis Fails to Get Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned GINA DiFLAVIS, Plaintiff, v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-3914, (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied conditional certification of the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Choice Hotels International Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Rockville, Maryland. The company owns a dozen hotel and motel brands totaling about 6,400 properties worldwide, including roughly 300 Clarion Hotels in 39 states. Rama Construction Co., Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation, which owns and operates the Clarion Hotel in Essington where Gina DiFlavis worked. Ms. DiFlavis was briefly employed as a full-time, hourly housekeeper at the Clarion Hotel & Conference Center in Essington, Pennsylvania before being terminated. She worked at the Clarion Hotel from early June 2018 until late August 2018. Ms. DiFlavis alleges she was not compensated for the overtime hours she regularly worked for at Clarion Hotel. She alleges that all other housekeepers working at Clarion Hotels across the nation were subjected to the same treatment. She brings a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a class action under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). Defendants deny that Ms. DiFlavis worked in excess of 40 hours per week during any week of her employment. Defendants now move for summary judgment as to Ms. DiFlavis' overtime compensation claims. Choice Hotels also moves for summary judgment on the basis that it is not Ms. DiFlavis' joint employer. Choice Hotels argues that it does not have a joint employer status with Rama Construction concerning Ms. DiFlavis as a matter of law. To this, Ms. DiFlavis asserts that Choice Hotels was her joint employer under the FLSA because (1) Rama operated the hotel under a franchise agreement with Choice Hotels; (2) Choice Hotels created the employment policies contained in the Employee Handbook and other documents relating to her employment; and (3) her supervisors were employed by Choice Hotels. Choice Hotel counters that the franchise agreement does not contain any provision authorizing it to maintain the control over housekeepers necessary to establish a joint employer relationship. Both defendants assert that the Employee Handbook and employment-related documents Ms. DiFlavis relies on to support her claim were created by Rama, not Choice Hotel. Finally, Ms. DiFlavis moves for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action on behalf of herself and all Clarion Hotel housekeepers who have worked on a full-time, hourly basis during the maximum limitations period. The Defendants argue that Ms. DiFlavis fails to present any evidence that allows the Court to infer that other Clarion Hotel housekeepers, at the Essington location and nationwide, are subjected to the same allegedly unlawful policies and practices. In determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists, courts should consider whether the alleged employer has: (1) authority to hire and fire employees; (2) authority to promulgate work rules and assignments, and set conditions of employment, including compensation, benefits, and hours; (3) day-to-day supervision, including employee discipline; and (4) control of employee records, including payroll, insurance, taxes, and the like. * Authority to Hire and Fire Employees The Court finds that evidence shows that the Employee Handbook and other employee documents Ms. DiFlavis relies on to support her claim were indeed created by Rama, not Choice Hotels. Because Ms. DiFlavis fails to cite any evidence demonstrating that Choice Hotels has any authority to hire and fire housekeepers at the Essington hotel or any other Clarion Hotel, this factor weighs against establishing a joint employment relationship, the Court opines. * Authority to Promulgate Work Rules and Assignments and Set Conditions of Employment, Including Compensation, Benefits, and Hours Ms. DiFlavis generally asserts that Choice Hotels, through its franchise agreement with Rama, retains broad authority to set work rules, work assignments, and conditions of employment at the Essington hotel and other Clarion Hotels. Ms. DiFlavis says pursuant to the franchise agreement, Rama must comply with various Clarion Rules and Regulations, which set work rules for housekeepers. According to the Clarion Rules and Regulations, these standards are put in place because a clean, fresh-looking and properly stocked room is essential to a positive guest experience. The Court concludes that such familiar hospitality facilities standards are ultimately implemented to maintain the Clarion Hotel brand -- not to control particular working conditions and responsibilities of housekeepers. As to work assignments, Ms. DiFlavis admits that Rama controlled her schedule. The Court further finds that Ms. DiFlavis fails to point to any specific provision of the Clarion Rules and Regulations that pertains to compensation, benefits, and hours. The only compensation, benefits, and hours provisions she does cite are contained in the Employee Handbook and job descriptions created by Rama. This factor weighs against determining that a joint employer relationship or status existed, the Court notes. * Day-to-Day Supervision As to supervision of day-to-day work, Ms. DiFlavis was unable to cite provisions that go toward Choice Hotel's day-to-day supervision over housekeepers at the Essington hotel or other Clarion Hotels. Therefore, this factor also weighs against determining that a joint employer relationship or status existed. * Actual Control of Employee Records, Including Payroll, Insurance, Taxes, and the Like Ms. DiFlavis points to a provision in the franchise agreement which requires Rama to prepare on a current basis complete and accurate records concerning Gross Room Revenues and all financial, operating, marketing and other aspects of the Hotel specified by us from time to time (Hotel Data). The franchise agreement allows Choice Hotels to verify information required under this Agreement by requesting, receiving, inspecting, copying and auditing the Hotel Data and any and all records or documents related to the Hotel Data wherever they may be located. According to Ms. DiFlavis, such provisions allow Choice Hotels to possess actual control of her and other housekeepers' employment records. The Court disagrees that Choice Hotels' ability to review and audit financial records constitutes or translates into its actual control over employee records intended to establish a joint employer relationship. The Court finds this factor to also weigh against determining that a joint employer relationship existed. Upon deliberation, the Court determines as a matter of law that there is no joint employer relationship between Rama and Choice Hotels over Ms. DiFlavis. DiFlavis Compensation Allegations Ms. DiFlavis contends that her evidence is sufficient to support her overtime compensation estimation and that such estimation need not be as precise as the defendants suggest. Ms. DiFlavis' PMWA claims will be assessed in conjunction with the FLSA analysis. Because Ms. DiFlavis challenges the accuracy of the very evidence that Rama relies on to establish the alleged precise amount of work Ms. DiFlavis performed, the Court determines that a jury should decide whether Ms. DiFlavis did indeed work more than 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. FLSA Conditional Certification The Court opines that although Ms. DiFlavis' allegations that her pay stubs inaccurately reflect the hours she worked can be used to support her individual claim, her assumption that other housekeepers be subjected to the same conditions is insufficient to meet even her modest burden. In sum, Judge Pratter: (1) grants summary judgment in favor of Choice Hotels regarding all of Ms. DiFlavis' claims; (2) denies Rama's motion for summary judgment regarding Ms. DiFlavis' FLSA and PWMA claims; and (3) denies Ms. DiFlavis' conditional certification motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 6, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/wj5zqaw from Leagle.com GINA DIFLAVIS, FOR HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID J. COHEN - dcohen@stephanzouras.com - STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, JAMES B. ZOURAS - jzouras@stephanzouras.com - STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, CATHERINE T. MITCHELL , STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP, 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560, Chicago, IL, 60601-6024 & RYAN F. STEPHAN , STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, 100 N Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150, Chicago, IL 60606 CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH J. CENTENO - joseph.centeno@bipc.com - Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC & JARED PICKELL - jared.pickell@bipc.com - Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC. RAMA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Defendant, represented by RICHARD J. DEFORTUNA - rdefortuna@paisnerlitvin.com - PAISNER LITVIN LLP & SUSAN M. CIRILLI - scirilli@paisnerlitvin.com - PAISNER-LITVIN LLP. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Cross Claimant, represented by JOSEPH J. CENTENO , Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC & JARED PICKELL, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC. RAMA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Cross Defendant, represented by RICHARD J. DEFORTUNA, PAISNER LITVIN LLP. CHUBB LTD: Susan Spath Sues Alleging Breach of Insurance Contract ----------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Spath Hegedus, Inc. d/b/a Kern & Co., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHUBB LTD; and ACE FIRE UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02832-TJS (E.D. Pa., June 15, 2020), is brought for declaratory relief and breach of contract arising from the Plaintiff's contract of insurance with the Defendant. At the direction of local, state, and/or federal authorities, the Plaintiff was forced to temporarily close its luxury interior design/retail furnishing business beginning on March 20, 2020, causing an interruption to and loss of the Plaintiff's business income. The Plaintiff and the Class purchased and paid for an "all-risk" Commercial Property Coverage insurance policy from Defendant, which provides broad property insurance coverage for all non-excluded, lost business income, including the losses asserted here. The Plaintiff says it submitted timely notice of its claim to the Defendant, but the Defendant has refused to provide the purchased coverage to its insured, and has denied the Plaintiff's claim for benefits under the policy. The Defendant has similarly refused to, or will refuse to, honor its obligations under the "all-risk" policy(ies) purchased by the Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class of insureds, says the complaint. The Plaintiff operates an interior design/retail furniture business and maintains an office in Solana Beach, California. CHUBB LTD is a Swiss corporation with its principal place of business in Zurich, Switzerland, and a domestic headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Company directly and indirectly issues, among other things, commercial property insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com kiverson@carlsonlynch.com - and - Todd Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 762-1910 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Moe's Original Files Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cincinnati Insurance Company. The case is styled as Moe's Original BBQ Hoover LLC, Lakeview Oyster House Inc., doing business as: Moe's Original BBQ Lakeview, Moe's Original BBQ Birmingham LLC, Moe's Original BBQ Trussville LLC, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00832-AMM (N.D. Ala., June 11, 2020). The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues. Cincinnati Financial Corporation offers property and casualty insurance, its main business, through The Cincinnati Insurance Company, The Cincinnati Indemnity Company and The Cincinnati Casualty Company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Courtney Cooper Gipson, Esq. James M Terrell, Esq. Perry Michael Yancey, Esq. R G Methvin, Jr., Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 939-0199 Fax: (205) 939-0399 Email: cgipson@mtattorneys.com jterrell@mtattorneys.com myancey@mmlaw.net rgm@mmlaw.net CITY COMPASSIONATE: Conde Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN CANIZALES CONDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY COMPASSIONATE CAREGIVERS, INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-05302 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Defendant sent an unsolicited telemarketing text message to Plaintiff's cell phone number nearly every day since November 2019 in an attempt to market its cannabis products. Plaintiff contends that he never provided his consent to Defendant to receive such text messages using an automobile dialing system. City Compassionate Caregivers, Inc. is a cannabis company with retail stores in Los Angeles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 Email: Rachel@kaufmanpa.com - and – Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel: (310) 474-9111 Emails: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com CLEANCHOICE ENERGY: Faces Velez TCPA Class Suit in W.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CleanChoice Energy, Inc. The case is styled as Daniela Velez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc., a Maryland company, Case No. 6:20-cv-06391 (W.D.N.Y., June 12, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. CleanChoice Energy is a clean energy supplier.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 298-3281 Fax: (914) 824-1561 Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Court Okay on Bid to Dismiss NJ Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the parties in the consolidated class action suit pending before he United States District Court for the District of New Jersey are awaiting the court's decision on the defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 5, 2016, October 27, 2016 and November 18, 2016, three putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming the company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. These complaints were consolidated into a single action and on April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased the company's common stock during the period between February 27, 2015 and September 29, 2016, naming the company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants and alleging violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false or misleading statements related to potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the company's business, prospects and operations, and the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting and our disclosure controls and procedures. The lead plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory damages, among other relief, and their reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2017. On August 8, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an order which granted the motion to dismiss in part, including dismissal of all claims against current officers of the Company, and denied them in part. On September 7, 2018, the company filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to certify the August 8, 2018 order for immediate appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). On October 18, 2018, the District Court issued an order granting the company's motion, and staying the action pending the outcome of the company's appeal petition to the Third Circuit. On October 29, 2018, we filed a petition for permission to appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On March 6, 2019, the Third Circuit denied the company's petition without prejudice. In an order dated March 19, 2019, the District Court directed the lead plaintiffs to provide the defendants with a proposed amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 10, 2019. The District Court has scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss for May 12, 2020. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation provides information technology consulting and technology services in North America,Europe, and Asia. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in Teaneck, New Jersey. COLONY CAPITAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Colony Capital, Inc. ("Colony " or "the Company") (NYSE: CLNY) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Colony securities between August 9, 2019, and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/clny. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Colony's sale of its industrial real estate portfolio and the bifurcation of Colony Credit Real Estate's portfolio were foreseeably likely to negatively impact Colony's financial and operating results; (2) certain of Colony's remaining portfolio companies carried unsustainable levels of debt secured by hotels and healthcare-related properties and were thus at significant risk of default; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/clny or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Colony you have until July 27, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz Tel: 212-697-6484 Email: info@bgandg.com [GN] COLONY CAPITAL: Kirby McInerney Notes of July 27 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of those who acquired Colony Capital, Inc. ("Colony" or the "Company") (NYSE: CLNY) securities during the period from August 9, 2019 through May 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until July 27, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose that: (i) Colony's sale of its industrial real estate portfolio and the bifurcation of Colony Credit Real Estate's portfolio were foreseeably likely to negatively impact Colony's financial and operating results; and (ii) certain of Colony's remaining portfolio companies carried unsustainable levels of debt secured by hotels and healthcare-related properties and were thus at a significant risk of default. On November 8, 2019, Colony reported its third quarter of 2019 financial results, including "reductions of goodwill, real estate and provision for loan losses totaling $540.3 million" in large part due to "the pending sale of the Company's industrial investment management business and related real estate portfolio, and the decrease in management fees from Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. resulting from impairments related to its portfolio bifurcation." On this news, Colony's stock price fell $0.48 per share, or 8.7%, to close at $5.00 per share on November 8, 2019. Then, on May 8, 2020, Colony announced its first quarter of 2020 financial results, including that its portfolio companies had defaulted on $3.2 billion of debt secured by hotels and healthcare-related properties and that Colony had received a notice of acceleration covering $780 million of the defaulted debt. On this news, Colony's stock price fell $0.08 per share, or 3.8%, to close at $2.02 per share on May 8, 2020. If you acquired Colony securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Contact: Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. Tel: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: investigations@kmllp.com Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/ [GN] COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Class Action Over Credit Card Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Kavanagh, writing for BankingDay, reports that Slater and Gordon has filed a class action against Commonwealth Bank, alleging that the bank sold consumer credit insurance for credit cards and personal loans that it knew were worthless. The claim relates to cover sold between January 2010 and March 2018. The proceedings in the Federal Court have also been brought against Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd. Slater and Gordon said in a statement that CBA admitted to the Hayne royal commission that the policies were "junk insurance". However, existing policies "have been rolled over and many customers are continuing to be charged thousands of dollars in fees for worthless products to this day". Slater and Gordon practice group leader Andrew Paull said: "A 2018 review of the bank's sale of consumer credit products revealed that more than 200,000 people who were unemployed or not working full time had been sold this type of policy, meaning it was very unlikely they would have been able to claim against the insurance." Paull said the bank has compensated only a small number of customers who bought worthless policies. In May, NAB and MLC settled a class action claim over consumer credit insurance, agreeing to pay $49.5 million. The claim, also brought by Slater and Gordon, alleged that NAB and MLC engaged in unconscionable conduct by selling the insurance to people who were not eligible to claim under the terms of the cover or were highly unlikely to benefit from the policy. Allianz, Suncorp, Swann Insurance and QBE have all paid compensation to customers who bought various types of "add-on" insurance. ASIC has reported on the failings of consumer credit and other add-on insurance for a number of years. In a 2018 report, it highlighted the following issues: * it was unlikely that customers would be able to claim on asset protection policies because the insured value of the car was more than the car loan (where the customer paid a large deposit); * customers did not receive rebates when they paid out their loan early (which meant that their cover under the policy had stopped); * customers were over-insured because they were sold a higher and more expensive level of cover than needed; * customers were sold a product they were ineligible to claim on; * life cover was sold to young people who were unlikely to need it; * cover was unnecessary as it duplicated existing cover held by customers, including under their comprehensive insurance policies; and * customers were sold cover for longer periods than they needed, for example, because the car was close to the kilometer limit at which cover would expire. ASIC found that across all add-on insurance products it reviewed over three years, the gross amount returned to consumers in claims was only nine cents for every dollar of premium paid. By comparison, home insurance returns around 55 cents in the dollar. Last year, the regulator warned that unless consumer credit products were redesigned to provide better outcomes for consumers, it would use its product intervention power. [GN] COMMUNITY CARE: Murray Initiated Class Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Care Physicians, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Eleanor Murray, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Community Care Physicians, P.C., BST & Co. CPAs, LLP, Case No. 1:20-cv-00661-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y., June 12, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Community Care Physicians (commonly called CCP) is the largest, independent multispecialty medical group in the Capital Region of NY.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 558-5500 Fax: (646) 293-7937 Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com CONAGRA BRANDS: Falsely Sells Chocolate Fudge Pudding, Mena Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Mena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Conagra Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04505 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2020), seeks damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with regards to its Chocolate Fudge Pudding under its Snack Pack brand in packs of 3.25 OZ cups. According to the complaint, the relevant front label representations include "Snack Pack," "Pudding," "Made With Real Milk" and a bottle of overflowing milk. The representations of "Real Milk" give consumers the impression that the Product's fat content will come exclusively or predominantly from milkfat. None or a de minimis amount of the Product's fat content is from milkfat. Milkfat is an important food component for the demographic this food is marketed towards--growing children--which is why defendant promotes the Product this way. The Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is designed to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud the Plaintiff and consumers, according to the complaint. The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers like the Plaintiff. The value of the Product that the Plaintiff purchased and consumed was materially less than its value as represented by the Defendant. Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for them, the Plaintiff contends. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $1.79 for packs of 3.25 OZ cups, excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Product within her district and/or State for personal consumption. Conagra Brands, Inc., manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells Chocolate Fudge Pudding under its Snack Pack brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com CONFI-CHEK INC: Court OKs Transfer of Garza Case to Southern Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Kimberly Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Defendants' Motion to Transfer the case captioned DAVID GARZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONFI-CHEK, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01968-KJM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs David Garza, Naser Alzer, Kimberly Kennedy, Amandeep Singh and Samah Haider, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, commenced the class action suit in July 2018 against defendants Confi-Chek, Inc., Peoplefinders.com, Enformion, Inc. and Advanced Background Checks for violations of Section 1681(e)(b) of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and chapter 109 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. Defendants have moved to transfer the action to the Southern District of Texas because, among other things, the named plaintiffs are Texas citizens and interpretation of Texas law is central to the resolution of this matter. Plaintiffs oppose transfer, and Defendants have replied. Defendants moved to transfer the case action to the Southern District of Texas. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and Defendants replied. Judge Mueller finds that the Southern District of Texas would have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. However, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, the parties contest personal jurisdiction. Judge Mueller finds that Defendants are not subject to general jurisdiction in the Southern District of Texas because they are incorporated in California and their principal place of business is located in Sacramento. However, the Judge also finds that Defendants have purposefully directed their activities to the Southern District of Texas, thus subjecting themselves to specific jurisdiction in that district. The Judge need look no further than the First Amended Complaint to determine the Calder effects test has been satisfied. The first prong of the effects test, "intentional act," is satisfied by plaintiffs' allegations that defendants published criminal records under Texas law. The second prong of the effects test, "expressly aimed," is also satisfied -- as allegations support the conclusion, for jurisdictional purposes, that defendants were aware of plaintiffs' plight, yet continued to publish inaccurate criminal records, knowing, either affirmatively or through willful ignorance, the harm caused by their actions would be most prominently felt where plaintiffs reside, in Texas. Finally, the third prong of the Calder effects is satisfied because defendants knew the harm would be felt by plaintiffs in the forum. Having found the Calder effects test satisfied, Judge Mueller also finds that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants by the Southern District of Texas will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice because Defendants consent to personal jurisdiction in that district. In the present case, defendants argue because the "gravamen of this action is whether Defendants' websites 'publish' public information . . . in violation of . . . Texas law[,]" and because "this is a diversity case as well as a federal question case, [] it is well-settled that there is an interest in having the trial of [this] case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action." Defendants' argument is persuasive, Judge Mueller says. Moreover, Plaintiff's claims are brought on behalf of a putative class and there is no evidence Plaintiff is a resident of California. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to minimal weight. The Judge points out that on the one hand, named plaintiffs and two significant fact and expert witnesses are located in Texas, and defendants will conduct nearly all depositions and produce their own party-affiliated witnesses in Texas. On the other hand, Plaintiffs chose to file suit in defendants' home district, so it cannot be said defendants are inconvenienced should this action remain in the Eastern District of California. For these reasons, this factor weighs neither for or against transfer, Judge Mueller says. On balance, Judge Mueller opines, the evidence related to the convenience factors favor transfer. Plaintiffs' argument that evidence is most easily obtained in the California District as compared to the Southern District of Texas is offset by defendants' promise to produce all relevant evidence in Texas and the ease of electronic discovery, which mitigates any potential hinderance to otherwise accessible records. In sum, the convenience factors weigh in favor of transfer. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to change venue is granted, Judge Mueller rules. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer the matter to the Southern District of Texas for further proceedings and then close the case. A full-text copy of Judge Mueller's January 16, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wa3vqjl from Leagle.com David Garza, on behalf of themselves and of others similarly situated, Naser Alzer, on behalf of themselves and of others similarly situated, Margarita Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and of others similarly situated, Kimberly Kennedy, on behalf of themselves and of others similarly situated, Amandeep Singh, on behalf of themselves and of others similarly situated & Samah Haider, on behalf of themselves and of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Stephanie R. Tatar - Stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com - Tatar Law Firm, APC, Thomas J. Lyons , Consumer Justice Center P.A., 367 Commerce CourtVadnais Heights, MN 55127-8506, pro hac vice & William David George , Baker Wotring Llp, 1012 First Avenue, Fifth Floor Seattle, WA 98104, pro hac vice. Confi-Chek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Lee - chlee@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Christopher J. Truxler - ctruxler@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Eric E. Suits , Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, John Drury - jdrury@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua Heath Escovedo - jescovedo@weintraub.com - Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin, Pamela Q. Devata- pdevata@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice & Selyn Hong , Seyfarth Shaw, LLP. Peoplefinders.com, Defendant, represented by Christopher Lee , Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Christopher J. Truxler , Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Pamela Q. Devata , Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice & Selyn Hong , Seyfarth Shaw, LLP. Enformion, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Lee , Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Christopher J. Truxler , Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Eric E. Suits , Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Pamela Q. Devata , Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice & Selyn Hong , Seyfarth Shaw, LLP. CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Loses Dismissal Bid in Gary Lin Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Victoria Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned GARY LIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-11889. (E.D. Mich.). Crain Communication, Inc. is a multi-industry publishing conglomerate. With headquarters in Michigan, Crain publishes and sells several nationally circulated publications, including Autoweek. Lin is a citizen of Virginia, who subscribers to Crain's magazine. Plaintiff Gary Lin commenced the class action complaint in June 2019, alleging that Crain violated Michigan's Personal Privacy Protection Act (PPPA), and was unjustly enriched by disclosing sensitive and statutorily protected information to third parties. Lin alleges that Crain disclosed Personal Reading Information (PRI) to data mining companies in violation of the PPPA. Crain argues that Lin lacks both statutory standing under the PPPA and Article III standing under the United States Constitution. Crain contends that (1) the PPPA protects only Michigan residents, precluding Lin from seeking relief; and (2) Lin does not make a claim for damages. The Court maintains that non-residents of Michigan are protected by the PPPA. The plain language of the PPPA provides a cause of action for customers whose information is disclosed in violation of it. Clearly, the PPPA does not impose a residency requirement for customers to have protections under the statute. The Court also finds that Lin alleges damages sufficient to survive a FRCP 12(b)(6) challenge. Crain argues that "Lin's claim has no nexus to this state other than his alleged payment to Crain." This is not true, the Court finds. Lin alleges that Crain disclosed his PRI to data mining companies in violation of the PPPA. He also contends that Crain sold "highly detailed customer lists," including sensitive information, about him and others to interested third parties. The Court further finds that Lin's allegations are sufficient to establish that Lin has Article III standing to sue Crain. In sum, the Court denied Crain's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 16, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/uf8hjba from Leagle.com Gary Lin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frank S. Hedin - fhedin@hedinhall.com - Hedin Hall LLP, Nick Suciu, III - nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - & Philip L. Fraietta - pfraietta@bursor.com - Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Crain Communications Inc., Defendant, represented by J. Michael Huget - mhuget@honigman.com - Honigman LLP, Jeffrey K. Lamb - jlamb@honigman.com - Honigman LLP & Robert M. Riley - rriley@honigman.com - Honigman LLP. CREIG NORTHROP: 4th Cir. Vacates Summary Judgment in Baehr Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PATRICK BAEHR; CHRISTINE BAEHR, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE CREIG NORTHROP TEAM, P.C.; CREIGHTON EDWARD NORTHROP, III; LINDELL C. EAGAN; LAKEVIEW TITLE COMPANY, INC., Defendants-Appellees, and CARLA NORTHROP; LONG & FOSTER REAL ESTATE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 19-1024 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the summary judgment award and remanded for dismissal. In July 2008, the Baehrs purchased a home in Glenwood, Maryland. They hired Maija Dykstra, a real estate agent who was a member of The Creig Northrop Team, P.C., to represent them as buyers. The Northrop Team is comprised of real estate agents who independently provide real estate brokerage services under the brokerage license of Long & Foster Real Estate, Inc. Creighton Northrop, III, a real estate agent, is the President of The Northrop Team. As President of The Northrop Team, Northrop splits real estate commissions with the other real estate agents who are independent-contractor members of the Team. The appeal arises from a purported kickback scheme orchestrated by the defendants, The Creig Northrop Team, P.C., Creighton Northrop, III (the "Northrop Defendants"), the Lakeview Title Company, Inc., and Lindell Eagan (the "Lakeview Defendants"). Homeowners Baehrs, as representatives of the putative class of the Plaintiffs, specify in their operative single-count complaint that the kickback scheme, in which the Lakeview Defendants paid the Northrop Defendants for marketing services that were actually illegal business referrals, deprived them and the other class members of impartial and fair competition between settlement service[s] providers, in contravention of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). After conducting discovery, the Northrop and Lakeview Defendants jointly moved for summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the Baehrs had not established that they possessed Article III standing to sue. The district court thereafter awarded summary judgment to the defendants on that ground. More specifically, the court reasoned that the Baehrs had not suffered a concrete injury, and thus could not establish the necessary injury-in-fact for standing. Alternatively, the Summary Judgment Opinion barred the Baehrs' claim under RESPA's statute of limitations based on their failure to establish that the claim was equitably tolled. On appeal, the Baehrs contend that the deprivation of impartial and fair competition between settlement services providers is a concrete injury under RESPA. Accordingly, the Baehrs maintain that an overcharge is not necessary to have standing to bring their RESPA kickback claim. The Baehrs also advance three concrete injuries not alleged in the Operative Complaint. First, the Baehrs suggest that the Northrop Defendants owed fiduciary duties to remit to them any kickback paid by the Lakeview Defendants and to provide impartial advice and advocacy. According to the Baehrs, because those two duties went unfulfilled, the otherwise reasonable fees that they paid to the Lakeview Title Company were an overcharge that caused them to suffer a concrete injury. Second, the Baehrs suggest that they suffered a concrete injury because the Northrop Defendants were unjustly enriched by the Baehrs's engagement of the Lakeview Title Company as their settlement services provider. Third, the Baehrs suggest that they suffered a concrete injury by paying for settlement services provided in contravention of RESPA. The Fourth Circuit concludes that the Baehrs have not suffered a concrete injury. The Baehrs accordingly cannot establish injury-in-fact, and the Fourth Circuit therefore agrees with the district court's determination that the Baehrs lack Article III standing to sue. Because the Appellate Court was obliged to dismiss upon making that determination, the Fourth Circuit vacated the summary judgment award and remanded for dismissal. A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's March 13, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/3AIPme from Leagle.com. Patrick Baehr & Christine Baehr, Plaintiffs, represented by Gregory Todd Lawrence -- greg@lawcfl.com -- Conti Fenn and Lawrence LLC, Glenn Russell Donaldson , Law Offices of G Russell Donaldson PC, Michael James Silvestri -- michael@lawcfl.com -- Conti Fenn and Lawrence LLC & Rachael Elaine Breen, Law Offices of G Russell Donaldon PC. The Creig Northrop Team, P.C. & Creighton Edward Northrop, III, Defendants, represented by Jay N. Varon -- jvaron@foley.com -- Foley and Lardner LLP, Timothy G. Casey, Law Office of Timothy G. Casey PA, Jennifer M. Keas -- jkeas@foley.com -- Foley and Lardner LLP & John Augustine Bourgeois, Kramon and Graham PA. Lindell C. Eagan & Lakeview Title Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by Andrew C. White -- awhite@mdattorney.com -- Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC, William Nelson Sinclair, Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC, Jennifer M. Keas, Foley and Lardner LLP & John Augustine Bourgeois -- jbourgeois@kg-law.com -- Kramon and Graham PA. Long & Foster Real Estate, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Augustine Bourgeois, Kramon and Graham PA, Jennifer M. Keas, Foley and Lardner LLP & Stuart M.G. Seraina, Kramon and Graham PA. CUTTERS WIRELINE: State Law Claims Certification in Lindsay Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, THAD LINDSAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CUTTERS WIRELINE SERVICE, INC., a Utah corporation; MESA WIRELINE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; LONE WOLF WIRELINE, INC., a Utah corporation; WIRELINE SPECIALITES, INC., a New Mexico Corporation; CAPITAN CORPORATION, a Texas corporation; and CAPITAN WIRELINE, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, collectively d/b/a Cutters Wireline Group, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-cv-01445-PAB-SKC (D. Colo.), Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (i) denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification of State Law Claims, and (ii) denied the Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. The case is a wage and hours dispute. Plaintiff Lindsay, a resident of Colorado, worked as a wireline operator for Defendant Cutters Wireline in several states, including Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. Cutters is the parent company of various wireline companies that operate in different states and regions. Specifically, Texas employees work for Capitan Corp. and Rocky Mountain employees -- which covers Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico -- work for Cutters. The Plaintiff alleges that, during the time period identified in the proposed class, Cutters operators were paid an hourly rate plus a bonus that was calculated as a percentage of the amount of work invoiced. Operators were paid time and a half for any work in excess of forty hours per week; however, the Plaintiff states that the overtime rate was calculated based on the hourly rate alone. As a result, an operator's bonus was not a factor in calculating overtime pay. The Plaintiff believes that the bonus should have been included and, therefore, he and other operators were underpaid. Cutters eventually changed its policy and began factoring bonus pay into overtime rates as of Summer 2016. According to the Plaintiff's motion, Cutters treats operators as exempt employees for the purposes of state and federal overtime laws. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff alleges that Cutters agreed to treat [o]perators as non-exempt and, therefore, agreed to pay overtime and use an operator's bonus as a factor in overtime compensation. Because Cutters failed to do so, it "breached its agreement" with the relevant operators. The Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 14, 2017. The complaint includes claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, claims for violations of state wage and hours laws, and a breach of contract claim. Plaintiff brings his FLSA claim as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); the Court granted conditional class certification of that claim on Aug. 27, 2018. The present motion requests that the Court certifies a class under Rule 23 as to certain state law claims. The Plaintiff proposes the following class: All current and former Cutters Operators who were paid an hourly rate and bonus at any time from June 14, 2011 through Summer 2016. Judge Brimmer finds that (i) it is an ascertainable class, (ii) given that the Plaintiff's proposed class is not limited to one state -- like Colorado, where he resides -- he is unable to determine whether the Plaintiff has standing to pursue his claim on behalf of all members of the proposed class; and (iii) the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he may pursue both his FLSA claim and his claim for breach of contract and duplicative state law claims are preempted by FLSA. Based on the foregoing, Judge Brimmer denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification of State Law Claims. The Plaintiff may file a second motion for class certification without delay. The Judge denied the Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 10, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/bvnVHd from Leagle.com. Thad Lindsay, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Brian David Gonzales -- BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com -- Brian D. Gonzales, PLLC. Cutters Wireline Service, Inc., a Utah corporation, Mesa Wireline, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Lone Wolf Wireline, Inc., a Utah corporation, Wireline Specialties, Inc., a New Mexico corporation, Capitan Corporation, a Texas corporation & Capitan Wireline, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, Defendants, represented by Christine Marie White, Baker Donelson PC, Jennifer Lynn Anderson, Baker Donelson PC, John D. Martin -- jmartin@martinhyman.com -- Martin & Hyman, LLC, Minia Elizabeth Bremenstul -- mbremenstul@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker LLP & Stephanie Marie Gilliam, Stephanie M. Gilliam, Attormey at Law. DAIMLER AG: Pickens Sues Over Mercedes-Benz's Defective Sunroofs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Pickens, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DAIMLER AG, MERCEDES-BENZ, SAINT-GOBAIN SEKURIT, AND NAPLETON AUTOWERKS OF INDIANA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03470 (N.D. Ill., June 14, 2020), is brought for Breach of Express and Implied Warranty, Unfair Business Practices, Misrepresentation, Unjust Enrichment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Emotional Distress, Fraud and Negligence arising out of the Defendants' manufacture, design, distribution and sale of Mercedes-Benz branded automobiles with defective sunroofs. The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, Mercedes-Benz engaged in the practice of misrepresenting the safety of the vehicles. As a result of this practice Mercedes-Benz vehicles have harmed vehicle owners and passengers. The Plaintiff is among the millions of consumers who purchased one or more of Mercedes-Benz vehicles during the ten years preceding the filing of this Complaint. Plaintiff and other similarly situated purchasers of the vehicles relied on Mercedes-Benz's misrepresentations in purchasing the vehicles, and would not have purchased the vehicles, had facts regarding the true safety of the vehicles were disclosed. The Defendants failed to adequately warn against the negative effects and risks associated with Mercedes-Benz's vehicles, according to the complaint. The Defendants failed to provide any warnings regarding the potential shattering of the sunroof. The Defendants omitted, concealed, and inadequately provided critical safety information regarding the use of Mercedes-Benz in order to induce its purchase and use. The Defendants engaged in and continued to engage in conduct likely to mislead consumers, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contends that the conduct was fraudulent, unfair, and unlawful because the Defendants knew or should have known about the shattering of Mercedes-Benz's sunroof. The Plaintiff contacted Mercedes-Benz's headquarters after the explosion of his sunroof. Mercedes-Benz received other complaints concerning the unexpected and sudden explosion of its sunroof prior to the Plaintiff's sunroof exploding. Despite clear knowledge that Mercedes-Benz's sunroof had a significant chance of shattering unexpectedly, the Defendants continued to market and sell Mercedes-Benz without warning consumers or healthcare providers of the significant risks of unexpected sunroof explosion, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a pre-owned certified 2015 Mercedes-Benz, with a sunroof manufactured by Mercedes-Benz and Saint-Gobain Sekurit. Mercedes-Benz is one of the largest vehicle manufacturers in the world, with more than 2.310 million sold in 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maudia Washington, Esq. WASHINGTON LAW OFFICES, P.C. 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1146 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 888.586.4441 Email: maudia@ilwashingtonlaw.com DARE COUNTY: Faces Class Action for Refusing Pandemic Refunds ------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Sbraccia, writing for WNCN, reports that vacationers who couldn't access their rented beach homes in Dare County are going to court to demand promised refunds that never came. People who rented beach homes were able to get refunds for past blackouts due to events like a hurricane or cut electrical cable. So, when Dare County prohibited access because of COVID-19, people who couldn't get to their rental properties believed refunds were in order. Most rental firms said they would do that, but broker Surf or Sound decided not to give refunds. "We're dealing with a lot of frustrated people," said attorney Gary Jackson of the Law Offices of James Scott Farrin. Renters formed a private Facebook group that has grown to about 800 members. Some in the group have filed a class-action lawsuit. "They made a promise that those folks would get a refund, but the shutdown was longer than they thought," Jackson said. "It was six weeks instead of two weeks and they came to the conclusion — not the same concussion as other rental agencies did — that they were not going to give people their money back." The North Carolina Real Estate Board and the state attorney general said the renters are owed refunds. Surf or Sound's attorney disputes that and sent multiple letters to the board explaining why the firm wouldn't be providing refunds. March 19 letter - April 28 letter - May 29 letter Attorney Lloyd Smith Jr. also said the renters knew they weren't getting refunds because the contracts they signed explicitly said that. He also said state law excludes pandemic closures. "When there's been government interference between a landlord and the tenant, the government is the responsible party and that's what happened in this case," Smith said. He added that Surf or Sound doesn't own any of the homes. Rather, it acts as a broker for those who own the properties. "Surf or Sound has been working very hard to allow tenants to switch to different weeks or different properties, even upgrading properties at no additional costs in the year 2020 and 2021, which is unprecedented," Smith said. The attorney for the renters said the offer to switch has time limits which are unacceptable. Jackson said the rental firm told people the offer would be taken off the table if the firm doesn't hear back by June 19. "A lot of our clients are very upset about that because of the dates and the uncertainty of the houses. They think they've been given the rigmarole," Jackson said. Class-action lawsuits can take a long time, so those who are going to court hope that Surf or Sound decides to refund the money instead of going through a lengthy litigation process. [GN] DELPHI BEHAVIORAL: Monroe Sr. Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SL MONROE, SR., and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. DELPHI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH GROUP, LLC d/b/a The Palm Beach Institute, PALM BEACH RECOVERY, LLC and DOMINIC SIRIANNI, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-80954-DMM (S.D. Fla., June 17, 2020) arises from Defendants alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Behavioral Health Technician from approximately July 20, 2018 through April 1, 2020. Plaintiff claims that he was not compensated by Defendant at the rate of not less than one and one-half times his regular rate for all the work he performed at average of 50 hours per week. Allegedly, Defendants were in the habit of routinely "shaving off" from Plaintiff's weekly salary. Dominic Sirianni is the Chief Executive Officer of Corporate Defendants. Delphi Behavioral Health Group, LLC d/b/a The Palm Beach Institute, and Palm Beach Recovery, LLC provide treatment programs for addiction and detox. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tanesha W. Blye, Esq. R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (305) 503-5131 Fax: (888) 270-5549 Website: https://www.saenzanderson.com/contact/ DENKA PERFORMANCE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Butler Tort Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Juanea L. Butler filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Juanea Butler v. Denka Performance Elastomer, et al., Case No. 19-30286, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 16, 2019, the Hon. Martin Feldman entered an order regarding Consent Motion to Postpone Submission Date and to Extend Time to Oppose Class Certification in the lawsuit. Judge Feldman ruled that the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is dismissed without prejudice, to be re-filed and re-noticed for hearing, if necessary, after the ruling upon the Plaintiff's pending Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The environmental tort litigation arises from the production of neoprene at the Pontchartrain Works Facility ("PWF") in St. John the Baptist Parish. Neoprene production allegedly exposes those living in the vicinity of the PWF to concentrated levels of chloroprene well above the upper limit of acceptable risk, and may result in a risk of cancer more than 800 times the national average. Plaintiff Butler has lived in LaPlace, Louisiana, since 1998. She sued the DOH, the DEQ, Denka, and DuPont, seeking class certification, damages, and injunctive relief in the form of abatement of chloroprene releases from her industrial neighbor, the PWF. The appellate case is captioned as Juanea Butler v. Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, et al., Case No. 20-30365, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JUANEA L. BUTLER, Individually and as representative of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Danny Dustin Russell, Esq. RUSSELL LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 11616 Southfork Avenue Baton Rouge, LA 70816 Telephone: (225) 307-0088 E-mail: danny@dannyrusselllaw.com Defendants-Appellees DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER, L.L.C., E I DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Through the Department of Environmental Quality, and STATE OF LOUISIANA, Through the Department of Health; Incorrectly named as Louisiana State Through the Department of Health and Hospitals, are represented by: James Conner Percy, Esq. JONES WALKER, L.L.P. 445 North Boulevard Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 248-2130 E-mail: jpercy@joneswalker.com - and - Brett S. Venn, Esq. JONES WALKER, L.L.P. 201 Saint Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70170-5100 Telephone: (504) 582-8116 E-mail: bvenn@joneswalker.com - and - Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Esq. KUCHLER POLK WEINER, L.L.C. 1615 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 592-0691 E-mail: dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com - and - Bradley Weidenhammer, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P. 300 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-3218 E-mail: bradley.weidenhammer@kirkland.com - and - Lawrence E. Marino, Esq. OATS & MARINO 100 E. Vermilion Street, Gordon Square Lafayette, LA 70501 Telephone: (337) 233-1100 - and - Willard L. West, Esq. ROEDEL, PARSONS, KOCH, BLACHE, BALHOFF & MCCOLLISTER, A.L.C. 8440 Jefferson Highway Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 929-7033 DESPEGAR: Faces Consumer Class Action Over Cancellation Policy -------------------------------------------------------------- Mariana Lopez, writing for Contxto, reports that the travel industry has been one of the most hard-hit by the coronavirus pandemic. The recent troubles of Argentina's Despegar only illustrate this further. In mid-May, the entity announced its billing had hit zero and cancellations were still rolling in. By the end of that same month, a class action lawsuit had emerged on behalf of consumers against the travel platform. It also announced that it would temporarily suspend its operations in Cordoba (Argentina). Despegar had hired a local team of around 30 people mainly for software development. Layoffs and lawsuits with Despegar In April, Despegar had already stated that 400 people would be losing their jobs. Though it pointed out that these changes in its operations in Cordoba weren't firings per se, but rather a temporary suspension "until the market kicks up again," according to local media. Who knows when that'll be. Staff at Cordoba were welcome to find new employment, work part-time, or relocate to Buenos Aires. Simultaneously, Despegar is facing a class-action lawsuit through the Consumers', Users', Customers', and Contributors' Association (UCUCC) of Argentina. According to this long-named organization, around 100,000 people have been affected by Despegar who hasn't returned their money after they changed their travel plans. "At the Association, we've inferred that due to the lack of income, the company [Despegar] decided to finance its operations with consumers' money," stated Juan Ignacio Cruz Matteri the UCUCC's legal rep. "Despegar argues that some reservations weren't 'liable for cancellation' but it's still returning a part. But it's important to emphasize that no person actually canceled their trip. The pandemic led to the suspensions and so no cancellation policy should apply." Hospitality and travel startups' strife Many travel-related businesses and startups throughout Latin America have announced layoffs courtesy of Covid-19. In early May, Mexican Best Day had announced a 20 percent cut in its 2,800 person-team. It's also facing claims from hoteliers that they're owed money for bookings that were made through its platform. Although its deal to be acquired by Despegar is reportedly still on the table. Meanwhile, MaxMilhas cut 42 percent of its 167 person-team after flights to and from Brazil stopped. But perhaps the worst has passed as some countries are slowly (ever so slowly) reopening. [GN] DFMMJ INVESTMENTS: Faces Itmaiza Class Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DFMMJ Investments, LLC. The case is styled as Gloria Itmaiza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DFMMJ Investments, LLC, doing business as: Liberty Health Sciences, a Florida Limited Liability Company,, Case No. 8:20-cv-01359 (M.D. Fla., June 11, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Liberty is a cannabis provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com DIGESTIVE CARE: Fails to Pay OT to Nursing Staff, McMichael Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANISSA McMICHAEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff vs. DIGESTIVE CARE, PA, ARKANSAS SURGERY AND ENDOSCOPY CENTER, LLC, and SYED A. SAMAD, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00755-LPR (E.D. Ark., June 17, 2020) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff against Defendants for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other hourly employees regularly worked over forty hours per week but Defendant failed to pay them a lawful overtime premium. Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly certified nursing assistant from September of 2019 to May of 2020. Digestive Care, PA is a healthcare provider based in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Arkansas Surgery and Endoscopy Center, LLC is a medical group practice located in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tess Bradford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 DOW JONES: Rentola Sues Over Disclosure of WSJ Subscribers' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER RENTOLA and SHERREE RENTOLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11589-SDD-EAS (E.D. Mich., June 16, 2020) is a class action complaint against Defendant for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of its customers' Personal Reading Information in violation of the Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act, and for unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, between May 4, 2015 and July 30, 2016, Defendant Dow Jones & Company, Inc. rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed personal information about Plaintiffs' The Wall Street Journal print newspaper subscriptions to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed their information to aggressive advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies. As a result, Plaintiffs have received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. By renting, exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing Plaintiffs' Personal Reading Information between May 4, 2015 and July 30, 2016, Defendant violated Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act. The Defendant's disclosure of Personal Reading Information, and other personal, demographic, and lifestyle information is not only unlawful, but also dangerous because it allows for the targeting of particularly vulnerable members of society. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. is a New York-based subsidiary of News Corp. and is a publishing and financial information firm that focuses on financial news publications, including its flagship publication The Wall Street Journal.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com DTI MEDIA: Faces Zerwas TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Zerwas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DTI MEDIA D/B/A DENVER TERPENES, a Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01697-NYW (D. Colo., June 11, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, to promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. The Defendant's prerecorded telemarketing call constitutes telemarketing because it encouraged the future purchase, sell, or investment in property, goods, and/or services, i.e., selling the Plaintiff one of the Defendant's products. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide the Defendant with his express consent to be contacted using an ATDS. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Fairfield County, Connecticut. The Defendant is a retailer that sells various essential oils and terpenes to individuals and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: 305-975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com EDUCATION MINNESOTA: Teachers Lose Class Action Over Union Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Verges, writing for Pioneer Press, reports that three Minnesota teachers demanding refunds from their union have lost a bid to certify their lawsuit as a class action. A federal judge's May ruling means individual teachers will have to bring their own legal claims if they want Education Minnesota to return past membership dues and agency fees. The case, led by Anoka-Hennepin teacher Linda Hoekman, is one of many across the country testing the application of the Supreme Court's 2018 Janus decision, which said public-sector unions no longer could deduct money from employees' paychecks without their consent. That ruling overturned a 1977 decision that allowed unions to deduct "fair-share" agency fees from non-union employees who benefit from collective bargaining. Hoekman's case still is alive, but without class certification, the stakes are considerably lower. Education Minnesota attorney David Aron said he's not aware of any plaintiffs who have succeeded in winning refunds of union dues or agency fees in the wake of the Janus decision. "We are optimistic based on hundreds of court decisions that have come our prior to ours that we will continue to be successful," he said. Unions, however, have reached settlements in some cases, according to media reports. JANUS FALLOUT Before Janus, Education Minnesota had close to 90,000 dues-paying members and received agency fees from another 5,658 non-members, according to public filings. After Janus, membership fell by 338 and the union lost its non-member fee payers. Overall revenue from dues and agency fees dropped to $29.9 million in 2019 from $31 million the year before. It could have been much worse. Before Janus, a National Education Association survey asked members working in agency-fee states like Minnesota whether they would "still opt to pay" if they knew the union would have to represent them either way. Between 57 and 69 percent said they would quit paying. Aron said the Red for Ed campaign -- in which teachers unions across the country demanded greater public funding, including through walkouts and strikes -- created a "surge in energy and activism" that made members see the value in their unions. "Janus was a real wake-up call for our members. It made them understand that we can't be complacent and rely on fair-share fees to survive," he said. HOEKMAN The Hoekman case, filed shortly before the Janus ruling, is one of at least 20 like it where plaintiffs are represented by Texas attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell, who disclosed in a court filing that the Chicago firm Juris Capital is financing the lawsuits. Mitchell and Doug Seaton of the Upper Midwest Law Center, Hoekman's local attorney, did not respond to an email about the case on June 10. The lawsuit describes Hoekman as a former union member who became a fee payer in 2006 because union salaries were too high and she disagreed with some of its political positions. Also named as plaintiffs are Mary "Dee" Buros, a Shakopee union member since 1997 who says she wasn't given the option of paying fees instead of union dues, and Paul Hanson, who paid fees at Centennial before the Janus decision and thinks the union should not be involved in politics. U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson refused to certify the lawsuit as a class action because, among other reasons, the class members don't all have the same desires or motivations. Even a class of only fee payers, she wrote, would include educators who wouldn't want the union weakened by a legal ruling would force it to issue refunds. Nelson's ruling also applied to a separate 2018 refund case against AFSCME Council 5 by MnDOT worker Thomas Piekarski, who says the union wastes money and misuses union dues. The union offered him a partial refund but he refused. [GN] EDWARD S ZIZMOR: Williams-Hopkins Files FCRA Suit in New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZIZMOR, et al. The case is styled as Rosa M. Williams-Hopkins, Randy Hopkins, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. EDWARD S. ZIZMOR, JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:20-cv-07168-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., June 11, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Edward S. Zizmor is an attorney in both New York and New Jersey, who specializes in collection.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM, LLC 411 Hackensack Ave., Ste. 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 273-7117 Fax: (201) 273-7117 Email: ykim@kimlf.com ELANCO ANIMAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of those who acquired Elanco Animal Health Incorporated ("Elanco" or the "Company") (NYSE: ELAN) securities during the period from January 10, 2020 through May 6, 2020. Investors have until July 20, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose that: (i) after consolidating its distributors from eight to four, the Company increased the amount of inventory, including companion animal products, held by each distributor; (ii) Elanco's distributors were not experiencing sufficient demand to sell through the inventory; (iii) as a result, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Elanco would reduce its channel inventory with respect to companion animal products. On May 7, 2020, Elanco announced its first quarter 2020 financial results, reporting revenue of $657.7 million and earnings per share of -$0.12, reflecting "a reduction of approximately $60 million in channel inventory." The Company's Chief Executive Officer attributed the disappointing results to "distributor performance," among other things, and stated that Elanco planned "to tighten [its] approach across many facets of [its] distributor relationships." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.05, or 13.3%, to close at $19.88 per share on May 7, 2020. If you acquired Elanco securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Contact: Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. Tel: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: investigations@kmllp.com Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/ [GN] EMORY UNIVERSITY: $17M Retirement Plan Class Deal Gets Early Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg Law reports that Emory University's $16.75 million settlement, resolving a 45,000-person class action targeting the fees and investment options in its retirement plan, got tentative approval from a federal judge in Atlanta. The settlement is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant sending notice to the class members, Judge Charles A. Pannell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia said. A final fairness hearing is set for Oct. 1. Pannell declined to dismiss the suit in 2017 and certified it as a class action in 2018. [GN] ENERGEN RESOURCES: Court Refuses to Dismiss Fullerton Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert Brack of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned JAMES B. FULLERTON and BARBARA A. FULLERTON, Plaintiffs, v. ENERGEN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 1:19-cv-00346-RB-KRS, (D.M.N.). The saga of Defendant Energen Resources Corporation and its alleged royalty underpayments continues this time in an individual lawsuit. Plaintiffs James B. Fullerton and Barbara A. Fullerton sued Energen for violating lease and royalty agreements dating back to 1989. The Anderson Living Trust sued Energen for breaching the lease and royalty agreements pertaining to wells in New Mexico. The case is ongoing and on remand from the Tenth Circuit. Anderson Living Tr. v. Energen Res. Corp., 886 F.3d 826, 832 n.8 (10th Cir. 2018). The Court certified a narrowed class in that matter limited to Colorado plaintiffs, excluding the Fullertons. In a related case, a group of plaintiffs filed a class action against Energen on March 29, 2018, making the same royalty underpayment argument. Ulibarri v. Energen Res. Corp., No. 1:18-cv-00294-RB-SCY (Ulibarri). Energen moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims and argues that they missed their opportunity to recover because the six-year statute of limitations has run. The Fullertons contend, however, that these claims are tolled by a related class action lawsuit filed in 2013 under the doctrine espoused in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). Considering that the claims filed in this matter are nearly identical to those filed in the 2013 class action, American Pipe tolling applies, the Fullertons insist. The statute of limitations starts to run when an injury occurs or is discovered, but the Supreme Court has held that the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action. The Supreme Court limited American Pipe the following year, holding that the tolling effect given to the timely prior filings in American Pipe depended heavily on the fact that those filings involved exactly the same cause of action subsequently asserted. Johnson v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 467 (1975). Energen's Motion to Dismiss argues that the Fullertons' claims are barred by the statute of limitations. That is, the Fullertons filed their action in April 2019, so state law bars any breach of contract claim based on royalties paid prior to April 2013. In sum, Energen claims that the two related class actions rest upon different legal theories and thus the Fullertons do not benefit from tolling. In the present matter, the Fullertons claim that Energen breached its obligations under the Lease Agreement by failing to pay royalties based upon the proceeds received on the sale of residue gas, natural gas liquids, and condensate, which came from gas wells subject to the Lease Agreement. The Fullertons also allege related violations of the Overriding Royalty Agreements and the NMOGPPA. The original Anderson complaint was filed on September 20, 2013, and the Anderson class represented their interests until this present lawsuit. In the meantime, the Anderson class was recently certified but narrowed to only include the Colorado plaintiffs, so the Fullertons are no longer represented. Therefore, the tolling of the statute of limitations extends the Fullertons' claims for underpaid royalties back six years before the Anderson complaint was filed to September 20, 2007. Moreover, since the Anderson complaint tolls the statute of limitations for the Fullertons, it is unnecessary to discuss the more recently filed Ulibarri case. Accordingly, the Energen's Partial Motion to Dismiss is denied, the Court ruled. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 27, 2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/w8wu9on from Leagle.com James B Fullerton & Barbara A. Fullerton, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, represented by George Barton , Law Offices of George Barton, P.C., 7227 Metcalf AvenueSuite 301Overland Park, KS 66204 Energen Resources Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradford C. Berge -bberge@hollandhart.com - Holland & Hart LLP & Christopher A. Chrisman -cachrisman@hollandhart.com - Holland & Hart LLP, pro hac vice. Energen Resources Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Bradford C. Berge , Holland & Hart LLP & Christopher A. Chrisman , Holland & Hart LLP. Barbara A. Fullerton, Husband and Wife & James B Fullerton, Counter Defendants, represented by George Barton , Law Offices of George Barton, P.C. ENHANCED RECOVERY: 7th Cir. Upholds Trial Court Ruling in Johnson ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Stafford, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reports that a district court properly ruled for a debt collector in a class-action suit that sought damages for allegedly misleading letters sent to consumers, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 10. Erin Johnson sued Enhanced Recovery Company LLC in the Northern Indiana District Court in Hammond after the company sent her three letters in 2016 seeking to collect a debt of $1,094.72 owed to Sprint. After the second letter warned that the debt may be reported to national credit bureaus, ERC did report the debt. Afterward, the third letter contained the same warning, that the debt may be reported. Johnson alleged the language was in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692(e), which prohibits false, deceptive or misleading representations by debt collectors. Northern District Judge Philip Simon rejected ERC's motion to dismiss the case and certified a class of anyone who received a letter like Johnson's between July 2016 and August 2017, but he granted ERC's motion for summary judgment. The 7th Circuit affirmed on June 10. "Because Johnson failed to present any evidence beyond her own opinion that ERC's letter was misleading, we affirm the judgment of the district court," Judge Ilana Rovner wrote. "Our case law makes clear that 'mere speculation' by the plaintiff that a collection letter is misleading is insufficient to survive a debt collector's motion for summary judgment," Rovner wrote, citing Durkin v. Equifax, 406 F.3d 410, 415 (7th Cir. 2005). "In denying ERC's motion to dismiss Johnson's complaint, the district court observed that 'as the case proceeds, the parties may (both might, and are permitted to) present evidence about how unsophisticated consumers would interpret' the allegedly misleading statements in ERC's April letter. Because Johnson chose instead to rely solely on her 'speculation"' to support her claim, summary judgment for ERC was appropriate." Meanwhile, the 7th Circuit also rejected ERC's cross-appeal that argued the district court erred by rejecting its motion to dismiss. Because the district court determined Johnson had presented a plausible claim that consumers could be confused or misled by the language of the letters, denial of ERC's motion to dismiss was proper, the appellate panel ruled.. The opinion is Erin Johnson v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, 19-1210 & 19-1334. [GN] EVENTBRITE: Sued Over Coronavirus Ticket Refund Policies -------------------------------------------------------- Ian Courtney, writing for Celebrity Access, reports that ticketing company Eventbrite is facing a new potential class action lawsuit over its coronavirus ticket refund policies. The suit, filed in California, alleges that Eventbrite violated California's Business and Professions Code which requires that the "ticket price of any event which is canceled, postponed, or rescheduled shall be fully refunded to the purchaser by the ticket seller upon request." However, the plaintiffs claim that Eventbrite has "consistently refused to allow refunds" for events that have been affected by COVID-19, even when canceled or indefinitely postponed. The plaintiffs also allege that Eventbrite attempted to shift responsibility to event organizers, allowing them to refuse refunds for cancellations, postponements and rescheduled events. As well, plaintiffs took issue with Eventbrite's "make good" policy, through which the company has urged event producers to provide refunds to customers. The plaintiffs maintain that the policy is insufficient as it only appears to apply to event tickets purchased before March 15th and only for events that were scheduled to take place between March 15 and May 15. Through the suit, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to bar Eventbrite from continuing their alleged "unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair business practices" as well as statutory and punitive damages, and an award of restitution. In a filing with the SEC, Eventbrite indicated that it "disputes the merits of these claims and intends to vigorously defend against them." Eventbrite's stock took a hit after they announced plans to contest the suit, off by more than 15% for the week at the end of trading on June 10. [GN] FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces Aria Dental Class Suit in M.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, et al. The case is styled as Aria Dental Group, LLC d/b/a Monroe Family and Cosmetic Dentistry, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00068 (M.D. Ga., June 12, 2020). The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues. Farmers Insurance Exchange is one of the insurers comprising Farmers Insurance Group. Farmers Insurance Exchange along with Fire Insurance Exchange and Truck Insurance Exchange, and their subsidiaries and affiliates, provide automobile, homeowners, personal umbrella and business owners insurance. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] FBCS INC: Mitchell Sues in S.D. Texas Alleging Violation of FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FBCS Inc., et al. The case is styled as Quashanique Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FBCS Inc., Cavalry SPV I, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 4:20-cv-02050 (S.D. Tex., June 11, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. FBCS, Inc., is a third-party collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (347) 668-9326 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com FCC BUTNER: Federal Judge Rules vs. Inmates in COVID-19 Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Kane, writing for Raleigh News Observer, reports that a federal judge rejected a request from a group of Butner inmates that the prison complex immediately release inmates vulnerable to COVID-19 and set up additional procedures to make the complex safer for those remaining. U.S. District Judge Louise W. Flanagan said in her decision that the inmates and their attorneys did not prove Butner and Federal Bureau of Prisons officials had treated inmates with "deliberate indifference" in their efforts to try to prevent the introduction and spread of the virus that has so far contributed to the deaths of 18 inmates with pre-existing conditions and caused the death of one correctional officer. "The court agrees with petitioners that the public interest is served by preventing unnecessary illness and death and slowing the spread of the virus," Flanagan said in her decision. "Respondents, however, have made reasonable efforts to achieve those goals. "Particularly in the absence of substantial evidence showing respondents were deliberately indifferent to the spread of COVID-19, the record at this stage does not present 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying judicial intervention in the management of FCC-Butner's response to the virus." The inmates filed the class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of North Carolina on May 26. It is one of several class action suits filed against federal prisons in five states over their handling of the virus. Butner, about 30 miles north of Raleigh, has one of the worst outbreaks among federal prisons. As of Thursday, the bureau reported 965 inmates and staff had tested positive, all but 55 of them inmates. Among the active cases are 675 inmates, most of them in the low-security prison on the complex, and 17 staff. All four facilities at the complex have at least two reported cases. Last week, the federal prison became the first in the country to have a confirmed COVID-19 death of an employee. Charlynn Phillips, a senior correctional officer at Butner for nearly a decade, died two weeks after testing positive on May 19. Another employee at a prison in Atlanta is suspected of dying from the virus in April, but the bureau has not confirmed that was the cause. Butner officials said they had acted promptly when they first learned of the virus' threat. Among the measures in place are stepped up sanitation, screening of inmates and staff, and quarantining of those who have tested positive. The inmates say the prison hasn't done enough, and those measures haven't prevented the spread of the virus, especially in a complex that has 400 inmates above its capacity. Butner and other prisons are under a federal directive to release some inmates. The court filings show Butner reviewed 932 inmates for possible release. Of those, 42 have been given home confinement and nine have been placed in residential re-entry centers. Another 48 have been approved for home confinement or are awaiting approval for placement in a residential re-entry center. Since March, 56 additional inmates have been sent home by their sentencing judges after making pleas for compassionate release. [GN] FLAIR AIRLINES: USA Routes Proposed Class Action Discontinued ------------------------------------------------------------- Flair Airlines Ltd. announced that the proposed class action involving Flair Airlines Ltd.'s cancellation of various USA routes in or about February-March 2019 has been discontinued. A proposed class action was filed on March 29, 2019 at the Federal Court seeking compensation for the affected passengers. On June 9, 2020, the Federal Court approved the Plaintiff's application to discontinue the proposed class action against Flair Airlines Ltd. This discontinuance means that the proposed class action will no longer proceed. As such, any potential class members who wish to proceed with their claims on an individual basis should consider doing so. This notice has been approved for distribution by the Federal Court. [GN] FOREMOST GLATT: Robinson Appeals Decision in Labor Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Barry Robinson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled BARRY ROBINSON, et al. v. FOREMOST GLATT KOSHER CATERERS, INC/., et al., Case No. 158042/2018, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The lawsuit alleged that in violation of the New York Labor Law, the Defendants unlawfully collected and retained mandatory service charges (which were supposedly for the Plaintiff and a putative class of similarly-situated catering service workers) from 2012 to the present, without properly advising customers that it was not a gratuity for the service staff. FGKC and individual defendants Randy Zablo, Angela Zablo, and Jeffrey Becker moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules. By decision and order, dated January 29, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as to Defendant FGKC and granted the motion to dismiss as to Mr. Zablo, Ms. Zablo, and Mr. Becker. The appellate case is captioned as BARRY ROBINSON, et al. v. FOREMOST GLATT KOSHER CATERERS, INC., et al., Case No. 2020-02661, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department.[BN] FOUNDATION FOR NATIONAL: Faces Moore Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FOUNDATION FOR NATIONAL PROGRESS, ET AL. The case is styled as Reginald Moore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FOUNDATION FOR NATIONAL PROGRESS, MOTHER JONES, LLC, Case No. CGC20584711 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., June 11, 2020). The case type is stated as "BUSINESS TORT." The Foundation for National Progress is a nonprofit organization created to educate the American public by publishing Mother Jones.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH LLC 333 E City Ave., Ste. 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1514 Telephone: (610) 667-6200 Facsimile: (610) 667-9029 E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com GENERAL DYNAMICS: Court Dismisses Piron Suit With Leave to Amend ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MOLLIE PIRON, STEPHANIE MERINO and BOUNSOU THAMVANTHONGKHAM on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL DYNAMIC'S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:19cv709 (E.D. Va.), Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In the putative class action, the named Plaintiffs seek back pay and employee benefits for alleged violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. They, and approximately 1,500 employees who are allegedly similarly situated to them, are former employees of Defendant General Dynamics Information Technology ("GDIT"). GDIT is an information technology company incorporated and headquartered in Virginia. In the Spring of 2018, GDIT acquired CSRA, a company that performed federal agency employee background checks for the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM"). The CSRA/OPM contract was an asset to which GDIT succeeded when it acquired CSRA. The CSRA employees, which included about 1,200 Investigators and 300 Reviewers, became employees of GDIT, and they continued to work on the OPM contract within GDIT as part of GDIT's Civil and Homeland Security Group. According to the Amended Complaint, these employees all worked "remotely" from their homes but reported to, and received assignments from, managers Rebecca Knock and Anthony Durante, both of whom were situated in GDIT's Falls Church, Virginia office. In the Spring of 2019, GDIT determined that OPM work would soon end, and the company began to lay off employees in the Civil and Homeland Security Group. The first large wave of laid off employees were sent layoff letters on June 19, 2019, stating that their employment would be terminated on July 3, 2019. Subsequent waves of layoffs occurred on July 26, 2019 and Aug. 16, 2019, and a final wave of termination letters were sent on Aug. 22, 2019 and 26, 2019 with termination dates set for Sept. 5 or 13, 2019. The Amended Complaint alleges that, in taking those actions, GDIT violated the WARN Act by failing to provide sixty days' advance written notice of terminations to employees within the Civil and Homeland Security Group who worked "remotely" from home but who reported to, and received instructions from, GDIT's Falls Church office. The issue in the case is whether the Amended Complaint adequately alleges that the Plaintiffs and the putative class were employed at a single site of employment. To address that question, it is necessary to determine what the Amended Complaint actually says on that point. Relying principally on Meson v. GTX Techs. Servs. Corp., GDIT argues that the pleadings are inadequate as a matter of law. Specifically, GDIT argues that the Amended Complaint does not adequately allege that the terminations at issue affected at least fifty employees at any "single site of employment" as required to trigger the WARN Act. Judge Payne finds that the Amended Complaint simply does not contain factual allegations that plausibly state that the Plaintiffs meet the test of Meson. Meson set the rule for the Circuit, and viable WARN Act complaints in the Circuit must meet Meson's standard. The mere conclusory allegations that the Plaintiffs worked remotely or worked at a particular location do not meet that standard. Hence the Amended Complaint fails under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and Meson. However, the Plaintiffs' briefs and the argument of their counsel disclose the possibility that there are facts that have not been pleaded that would permit the crafting of a complaint that would meet the requirements of Meson, Twombly, and Iqbal. If that is so, the Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint. However, the counsel is reminded that a Second Amended Complaint also must satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Payne granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Amended Complaint is dismissed. Leave is granted for the filing of a Second Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 10, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/7XAILn from Leagle.com. Mollie Piron, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated & Stephanie Merino, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jennifer Jo West -- jwest@spottsfain.com -- Spotts Fain PC, Edward Everett Bagnell, Jr., Spotts Fain PC, Jack Raisner -- jar@outtengolden.com -- Raisner Roupinian LLP, pro hac vice & Rene Sara Roupinian -- rsr@outtengolden.com -- Raisner Roupinian LLP, pro hac vice. Bounsou Thamvanthongkham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Raisner, Raisner Roupinian LLP, pro hac vice, Rene Sara Roupinian, Raisner Roupinian LLP, pro hac vice & Jennifer Jo West, Spotts Fain PC. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil Harvey MacBride -- neil.macbride@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Craig J. Bergman -- craig.bergman@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, pro hac vice, Marie Michele Killmond -- marie.killmond@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, pro hac vice & Paul S. Mishkin -- paul.mishkin@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, pro hac vice. GLV INC: Incurs $5K Civil Sanction in Mullen Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAURA MULLEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GLV, INC., RICK BUTLER, and CHERYL BUTLER, Defendants, Case No. 18 C 1465 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Mullen's motion to sanction the Defendants. GLV is a youth volleyball business that offers coaching, training programs, and camps; it is known for placing its participants in competitive college sports programs. Mullen sued GLV and its owners, Rick and Cheryl Butler, in a class action alleging fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Physical Fitness Services Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Mullen alleges that the defendants wrongfully concealed from parents of GLV's program participants that in the 1980s, Rick raped and sexually abused several underage women. In the decision, the Court will refer to the Butlers by their first names for the sake of simplicity. In January 2019, the Court certified a Plaintiff class consisting of persons who paid for youth volleyball instruction through GLV's Sports Performance programs in Illinois between Feb. 27, 2013 and Jan. 10, 2018. In February 2019, after getting input from both sides, the Court approved a class notice, which included a brief description of the case, informed the class members about their options to either stay in the suit or opt out of the class, and explained the legal implications of both options. The notice also advised that class members choosing to opt out had to do so via mail by April 19, 2019. Mullen has moved for sanctions against the Defendants for improperly interfering with the class notice process. Mullen has also moved for sanctions against the Defendants' counsel, alleging that she violated her ethical responsibilities by communicating directly with represented parties and knowingly misrepresenting to the Court her clients' conduct during the opt-out period. The Defendants have separately moved for summary judgment. On review, Judge Kennelly finds that the Defendants intentionally interfered with the class notice and opt-out process and therefore grants Mullen's motion for sanctions against them. The sanctions the Court imposes under the Court's inherent authority must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense. At this point, the Court is, in a separate decision, largely granting summary judgment against the Defendants. As a result, the Defendants may have harmed only themselves by encouraging opt-outs—as those individuals will not be bound by a judgment against the class and may still be able to file individual suits. But the Defendants did not know that at the time. It is clear from the evidence that they were attempting to come up with enough opt-outs that they would be able to convince the Court to dismiss the case. The Defendants' concerted effort to interfere with the class notice and opt-out process unreasonably imposed an unfair and undue burden on the class and class counsel. They were required -- justifiably, in the Court's view -- to conduct extensive discovery and file motions to get at the bottom of what had occurred, and they were also required—again, justifiably -- to file and pursue the motion for sanctions. The Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants their reasonable attorney's fees and expenses in this regard. In addition, because the Defendants conducted a campaign to interfere with the processes of the Court, each of them (GLV, Cheryl, and Rick) is assessed a civil sanction of $5,000, payable to the Clerk, as a penalty for their misconduct. Judge Kennelly now turns to Mullen's motion for sanctions against D'Ambrose for violating two provisions of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Mullen has offered evidence of a single direct communication with a class member (although D'Ambrose's misinterpretation of the rule in her brief suggests there may have been others). The Judge will impose a sanction, but given the nature of the communication -- a request for information -- it is unclear how Mullen or the class were prejudiced. Without more, the Court is reluctant to impose a monetary or other severe sanction D'Ambrose for her violation of Rule 4.2. The Judge reprimands D'Ambrose for her misconduct. D'Ambrose's characterization of the Defendants' statements to the class members contained a significant falsehood. Making misrepresentations to the Court undermines its ability to ensure that matters before it proceed fairly and efficiently. The Judge concludes that D'Ambrose's conduct prejudiced the class, as least to some extent. Her misrepresentation contributed to the need for Mullen to conduct discovery on the Defendants' conduct during the notice period and to file motions, including the present motion. On the other hand, all of that would have been required even without D'Ambrose's misrepresentation, due to the misconduct of her clients that preceded her statement to the Court on March 29. This mitigates, to some extent, the degree of prejudice caused by her conduct, as opposed to that of the defendants. For these reasons, and due to D'Ambrose's relative lack of practice experience, Judge Kennelly will impose a non-monetary sanction. The Judge reprimands D'Ambrose for her false statement to the Court and directs her to complete, for her next continuing legal education cycle imposed by the state bar, twice the required amount of professional responsibility hours and certify the to the Court. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kennelly granted Mullen's motion to sanction the Defendants for their interference with the class notice process and to sanction D'Ambrose for communicating directly with a represented party and violating her duty of candor to the Court. The Judge ordered that the Butlers and GLV each to pay a penalty of $5,000 to the clerk of the Court without delay and to reimburse the Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred to litigate the motion. The Plaintiffs are directed to file an appropriate fee petition and supporting material. The Judge reprimanded attorney D'Ambrose for communicating directly with a represented party and for making false statements to the Court and orders her to complete, in the next continuing legal education compliance cycle, twice the professional responsibility credit hours required by the state bar. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/RS6SvZ from Leagle.com. Laura Mullen, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred Kirkland Murray, II -- erapp@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Sydney M. Janzen -- sjanzen@edelson.com -- Edelson Pc & Christopher Lillard Dore -- cdore@edelson.com -- Edelson PC. GLV, Inc, an Illinois corporation, Ricky Butler, an Individual & Cheryl Butler, an Individual, Defendants, represented by Danielle D'Ambrose, D'Ambrose P.C.. GOOGLE LLC: Bias Against YouTube Competitors, Newman Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY CARLESTE NEWMAN, LISA CABRERA, CATHERINE JONES, AND DENOTRA NICOLE LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, YOUTUBE LLC, ALPHABET INC, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-04011 (N.D. Cal., June 16, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, discrimination in contract in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, unlawful discrimination in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, and violations of California Constitution Article I, section 2, and freedom of speech under the U.S.C. First Amendment. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated African American content creators, viewers, and consumers, have been denied equal access to YouTube and all its related services. The Defendants' access restrictions and denials imposed on the Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated are not the result of an identity and viewpoint blind review and application of the rules to actual video material. Instead, the Defendants have an irreconcilable commercial conflict of interest: (1) the Defendants act as content creators or sponsors of video content, competing directly with the Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated for the same services, audiences, advertisers, and revenue streams on the YouTube platform; (2) the Defendants act as absolute regulators and monetizers of all YouTube content and services, and exercise unfettered authority to determine viewer and service access by enforcing their Community Guidelines and Terms of Service (TOS) against their competitors, based on the identity or viewpoint of the Plaintiffs and all other persons similarly situated. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants abuse their power by restricting and blocking competitors' access, based on racial identity or viewpoint discrimination for profit and by not subjecting their own videos to the same Community Guidelines and TOS that they apply to all other YouTube users, including their competitors. Google LLC is a for-profit, limited liability company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware, with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. YouTube LLC is a for-profit limited liability corporation that operates internet video viewer site, platform, and service in California, the United States, and the world. It is wholly owned by Google LLC, with its principal place of business located in Mountain View, California. Alphabet Inc. is a for-profit American multinational corporation conglomerate incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. It was created through a restructuring of Google on October 2, 2015 and became the parent company of Google and several former Google subsidiaries. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter Obstler, Esq. BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1280 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 391-7100 Facsimile: (310 275-5697 E-mail: pobstler@bgrfirm.com - and – Eric M. George, Esq. Debi A. Ramos, Esq. Keith R. Lorenze, Esq. 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 274-7100 Facsimile: (310) 275-5697 E-mail: egeorge@bgrfirm.com dramos@bgrfirm.com klorenze@bgrfirm.com GRAND CANYON: Faces Walsh Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- Grant Walsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC., BRIAN E. MUELLER, and DANIEL E. BACHUS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00801-UNA (D. Del., June 12, 2020), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Grand Canyon securities between January 5, 2018, and January 27, 2020, inclusive, and has been damaged as a result of declining price of shares. The case concerns the Company's July 2018 spin-off of its education assets through a sale to purported non-profit entity, Grand Canyon University. Before the spin-off, Grand Canyon had owned and operated a for-profit university with a physical campus and through online programs. After the spin-off, Grand Canyon would purportedly become a third-party provider of education services to GCU and potentially other universities, and GCU would operate as a separate, non-profit entity no longer owned or operated by Grand Canyon. The Class Period begins with Grand Canyon's January 5, 2018, announcement that it had applied to regional accreditation body the Higher Learning Commission ("HLC") for recognition of GCU as a non-profit institution. Throughout the Class Period, Grand Canyon told investors that GCU would be "independent" from Grand Canyon; that the relationship between the two entities would "no longer be as owner and operator, but as a third party contract party"; and that GCU was "not a related party" to Grand Canyon. Following the spin-off, Grand Canyon consistently reported growth in net income and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA"), and touted the success of its transition into the role of a third-party services provider. In reality, the Plaintiff alleges, GCU functioned as an off-balance-sheet entity to which Grand Canyon was able to funnel expenses and costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount of revenue, thereby, inflating Grand Canyon's financial results. The Plaintiff adds that GCU was not a proper non-profit organization but rather remained under the control of Grand Canyon through the Master Services Agreement ("MSA") and by virtue of Grand Canyon's employees serving as the executives who managed GCU. The truth was revealed in a series of corrective disclosures. First, on September 9, 2019, short seller Citron Research ("Citron") published a report examining Grand Canyon's financials and concluding that the Company "is stuffing GCU with expenses to inflate its own profitability and as a result bankrupting GCU." In response to this disclosure, the price of Grand Canyon stock declined approximately 5% intraday on September 9, 2019 to a low of $104.20 per share, and closed at $109.62 per share on September 10, 2019. Then, after the close of market on November 6, 2019, Grand Canyon announced that it had received a letter from the U.S. Department of Education denying its application for designation of GCU as a non-profit. In response to this disclosure, the price of Grand Canyon stock declined approximately 4% to close at $88.08 per share on November 7, 2019. On January 28, 2020, Citron published a second report expanding on the DOE's findings based on hundreds of pages of supporting documentation from Grand Canyon, which Citron obtained through a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request. Citron concluded that Grand Canyon was the "educational Enron," using a "captive non-reporting subsidiary" to "dump expenses and liabilities, while receiving a disproportionate amount of revenue at inflated margins in order to artificially inflate the stock price." Following this disclosure, Grand Canyon shares declined approximately 8% to close at $84.07 per share on January 28, 2020, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired Grand Canyon securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. The Plaintiff seeks relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Grand Canyon is an education services company incorporated in the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. O'KELLY & ERNST, LLC 824 N. Market St., Suite 1001A Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 778-4000 Email: rernst@oelegal.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com GRAND CANYON: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of July 13 Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE) between January 5, 2018 and January 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Grand Canyon during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than July 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Grand Canyon investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact: Sharon M. Lee Lieff Cabraser Toll-free: 1-800-541-7358 Background on the Grand Canyon Securities Class Litigation Grand Canyon, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, is an education services company. The action alleges that Grand Canyon made misrepresentations and omissions concerning the spin-off of the Company's education assets into Grand Canyon University ("GCU"). Defendants allegedly inflated the Company's financial results by treating GCU as an off-balance sheet entity into which Grand Canyon stuffed with its own expenses and costs to increase Grand Canyon's reported profits. The Company repeatedly misled investors by characterizing GCU as a proper "non-profit" and "independent" institution and misrepresenting Grand Canyon's role as a third-party provider of education services to GCU. On September 9, 2019, Citron Research published a report examining Grand Canyon's financials and finding that the Company "is stuffing GCU with expenses to inflate its own profitability and as a result bankrupting GCU." On this news, the price of Grand Canyon stock fell $4.85 per share, or 4.2%, from its closing price of $114.47 on September 9, 2019 to close at $109.62 the next day. On November 6, 2019, after market close, Grand Canyon disclosed that it had received a letter from the U.S. Department of Education ("DOE") denying the Company's application to designate GCU as a non-profit entity. DOE's denial was based on its findings that GCU was Grand Canyon's "captive client" and GCU "is not the entity actually operating [GCU]." On this news, the price of Grand Canyon stock declined $3.80 per share, or 4.13%, from its closing price of $91.88 on November 6, 2019, to close at $88.08 on November 7, 2019. On January 28, 2020, Citron Research released a second report containing additional details about the DOE's findings and referenced hundreds of pages of documentation GCE had submitted to DOE that Citron obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The report called Grand Canyon the "educational Enron," and concluded that Grand Canyon used a "captive non-reporting subsidiary" in order to "dump expenses and liabilities, while receiving a disproportionate amount of revenue at inflated margins in order to artificially inflate the stock price." On this news, the price of Grand Canyon stock fell $7.43 per share, or 8.12%, from its closing price of $91.50 on January 27, 2020, to close at $84.07 on January 28, 2020, on extremely heavy trading volume. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." [GN] GRAND CANYON: Rosen Law Reminds of July 13 Motion Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOPE) between January 5, 2018 and January 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important July 13, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Grand Canyon investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Grand Canyon class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1761.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Grand Canyon University ("GCU") would not be and is not a proper non-profit organization as it remains under the control of Grand Canyon; (2) Grand Canyon would not be a third-party service provider to GCU but rather would and does continue to effectively operate the entity; (3) Grand Canyon employees served as executives of GCU; and (4) GCU functions as an off-balance-sheet entity to which Grand Canyon is able to funnel expenses and costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount of revenue, thereby inflating Grand Canyon's financial results. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1761.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] GROUPON INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of June 29 Motion Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in Groupon, Inc. (NASDAQ: GRPN) ("Groupon" 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 Groupon stock or options between November 4, 2019 and February 18, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click www.faruqilaw.com/GRPN. 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 Tel: (877)247-4292 or (212)983-9330 The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all those who purchased Groupon securities between November 4, 2019 and February 18, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The case, Macovski v. Groupon, Inc. et al, No. 20-cv-02581 was filed on April 28, 2020, and has been assigned to Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failing to disclose to investors that: (1) that the Company was experiencing fewer customer engagements in its Goods category; (2) that Groupon relied on its Goods category to drive its sales, especially during the holiday season; (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. Specifically, on February 18, 2020, after the market closed, Groupon reported sales of $612.3 million, a 23% decline year-over-year. The Company's adjusted EBITDA for fiscal 2019 was reported at $227.2 million, a significant miss from its November 2019 forecast of $270 million. In the same press release, Groupon announced a "transformational plan to exit Goods" in North America by the third quarter and globally by the end of the year. On this news, Groupon's stock fell from a closing price of $3.05 per share on February 18, 2020 to $1.70 per share on February 19, 2020 - a $1.35 or 44.26% drop. 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 Groupon's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. [GN] GRUMA CORP: Orozco Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Production Workers --------------------------------------------------------------- NORMA OROZCO, individually, on behalf 0f all others similarly situated, and as representative of other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, VS. GRUMA CORPORATION, Nevada corporation; and DOES to 10, Defendants, Case No. 20CECGO1702 (Calif. Super., Fresno Cty., June 15, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime, meal, and rest period premiums as well as provide timely and accurate wage statements. Defendants employed Plaintiff as non-exempt employee in their packaging production plant in Fresno, California. Plaintiff worked on an assembly line, packaging tortillas from June 2004 to July 13, 2018. Plaintiff brings this action individually, as well as on behalf of each and all other persons similarly situated in concerted effort to improve wages and working conditions for other non-exempt and/or hourly employees, and thus seeks class certification under California Code of Civil Procedure. Gruma Corporation is a California-based that produces and distributes tortillas and corn flour in the United States and Europe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abraham Mathew, Esq. Jacob George, Esq. Sang J. Park, Esq. MATHEW & GEORGE 500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (310) 478-4349 Facsimile: (310) 478—9580 E-mail: abraham@mathewandgeorge.com jacob@mathewandgeorge.com sang@mathewandgeorge.com GSX TECHEDU: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have only until June 16, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against GSX Techedu Inc. (NYSE: GSX) if they purchased the Company's shares after June 6, 2019. This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. What You May Do If you purchased shares of GSX after June 6, 2019 and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-gsx/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action by overseeing lead counsel with the goal of obtaining a fair and just resolution, you must request this position by application to the Court by June 16, 2020. KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner E-maiL: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Web site: http://www.ksfcounsel.com/ [GN] HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of July 7 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of those who acquired Hallmark Financial Services Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL) securities during the period from March 5, 2019 through March 17, 2020. Investors have until July 7, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that Hallmark Financial failed to disclose that: (i) the Company lacked effective internal controls over accounting and financial reporting related to reserves for unpaid losses; (ii) the Company improperly accounted for reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business; (iii) as a result, Hallmark Financial would be forced to report a $63.8 million loss development for prior underwriting years; and (iv) as a result, Hallmark Financial would exit from its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business. On March 2, 2020, Hallmark Financial issued a press release, stating that it "made the strategic decision to exit its Binding Primary Auto business." On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.10, or 14.6%, to close at $12.23 per share on March 3, 2020. Then, on March 11, 2020, Hallmark Financial announced it had dismissed its independent auditor, BDO, over a "disagreement" concerning the Company's estimated reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses throughout 2019. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.39, or 29.5%, to close at $5.71 on March 12, 2020. Finally, on March 17, 2020, Hallmark Financial disclosed a letter from BDO to the SEC revealing that, on January 31, 2020, BDO had significantly expanded the scope of its audit with respect to the matters of disagreement and that "a substantial portion of the requests had not been received and/or tested prior to [BDO's] termination." If you acquired Hallmark Financial securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Contact: Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. Tel: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: investigations@kmllp.com Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/ [GN] HAMILTON BEACH: Glancy Prongay Notes of July 21 Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming July 21, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB) investors who purchased securities between February 27, 2020 and May 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") If you suffered a loss on your Hamilton Beach Brands 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/hamilton-beach-brands-holding-company/. 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 May 11, 2020, Hamilton Beach Brands disclosed that it could not timely file its first quarter 2020 quarterly report due to "certain accounting irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at its Mexican subsidiary." The Company also revealed that its "Audit Review Committee has commenced an internal investigation" regarding "the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary." On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.03, or nearly 9%, to close at $10.43 per share on May 11, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Hamilton had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, particularly with respect to one of its Mexican subsidiaries; (2) consequently, the Company's accounting included certain irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at this Mexican subsidiary, as well as potential misconduct with respect to the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary; (3) as a result of all the foregoing, Hamilton could not accurately attest to its financial results, particularly with respect to these metrics, and was consequently at an increased risk of delaying the filing of its period reports with the SEC; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased Hamilton Beach Brands securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 21, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action 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 action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact: Charles H. Linehan Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310-201-9150 Toll-Free: 888-773-9224 E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/ [GN] HAMILTON BEACH: Kirby McInerney Reminds of July 21 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company ("Hamilton" or the "Company") (NYSE: HBB) securities during the period from February 27, 2020 through May 8, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until July 21, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose that: (i) Hamilton had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, particularly with respect to one of its Mexican subsidiaries; (ii) consequently, the Company's accounting included certain irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at this Mexican subsidiary, as well as potential misconduct with respect to the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary; and (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, Hamilton could not accurately attest to its financial results, particularly with respect to these metrics, and was consequently at an increased risk of delaying the filing of its period reports with the SEC. On May 21, 2020, Hamilton announced that it could not timely file its first quarter 2020 Form 10-Q because of "certain accounting irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at its Mexican subsidiary." Hamilton further stated that its "Audit Review Committee has commenced an internal investigation" regarding "the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary." On this news, Hamilton's stock price fell $1.03 per share, or 8.99%, to close at $10.43 per share on May 11, 2020. If you acquired Hamilton securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website: www.kmllp.com. Contact: Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. Tel: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: investigations@kmllp.com Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/ [GN] HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: Misclassifies Employees, McKenzie Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA MCKENZIE and JAMES TAYLOR, in their representative capacity under the Private Attorney General Act v. HANDY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV20953 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 3, 2020), seeks civil penalties under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004, California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs contend that Handy willfully misclassifies its workers as independent contractors to deprive them of fundamental employment rights, such as the right to minimum wages, the right to overtime, the right to mandated meal breaks, the right to mandated rest breaks, the right to premium wages for missed meal and rest breaks, the right to accurate itemized wage statements, the right to the prompt payment of full wages within time limits designated by law, and the right to be reimbursed for necessary business expenses. Handy is an on-demand cleaning and home improvement service company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Rex Parris, Esq. Kitty K. Szeto, Esq. John M. Bickford, Esq. Ryan A. Crist, Esq. PARRIS LAW FIRM 43364 10th Street West Lancaster, CA 93534 Telephone: (661) 949-2595 Facsimile: (661) 949-7524 HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Taube Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses ----------------------------------------------------------- ERIK TAUBE, DMD, DBA TAUBE FAMILY DENTAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP INC., DBA THE HARTFORD, and TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00565-GCS (S.D. Ill., June 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and of a class of Illinois dental practices that purchased standard Hartford commercial property insurance policies, alleges that the Defendants have refused performance under the Plaintiff's policy and other Class members' policies by denying coverage for Business Income and Extended Business Income losses, without justification, despite the fact that they suffered business income and extra expense losses following the suspensions of dental clinics' operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff's policy and the policies of other Business Income and Extra Expense Coverage Class members are insurance contracts under which the Defendants were paid premiums in exchange for promises to pay Class members' losses for claims covered by the policy. Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., d/b/a The Hartford, is an insurance company incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut. Twin City Fire Insurance Company is an insurance company incorporated in Indiana with its principal place of business at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq. Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 E-mail: mark@ghalaw.com tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com - and – Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC 1010 Market Street, Suite 1645 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-5799 Facsimile: (314) 241-5788 E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com - and – Anthony S. Bruning, Esq. Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., Esq. Ryan L. Bruning, Esq. THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC 555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 735-8100 Facsimile: (314) 898-3078 E-mail: tony@bruninglegal.com aj@bruninglegal.com ryan@bruninglegal.com - and – Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: alfredo@aswtlawyers.com HEARTLAND PAINTING: Fails to Pay Complete OT, Rodriguez Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- AUGUSTO VELASQUEZ RODRIGUEZ, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEARTLAND PAINTING AND REMODELING SERVICES, INC., a Florida Corporation, and EMILIO MURRIETA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01399 (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged failure to pay complete overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt painter working on residential and commercial properties from approximately April 2019 to February 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked over 40 hours a week. But, Defendant denied him of overtime at one and one-half times of his regular rate for all hours worked over 40. Moreover, Defendants failed to maintain and keep accurate time records as required by the FLSA. Emilio Murrieta owns and operates Heartland Painting and Remodeling Services, Inc. Heartland Painting and Remodeling Services, Inc. provides painting and remodeling services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Jeffrey Del Rio, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Tel: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 245-3401 Emails: RMorgan@forthepeople.com JDelRio@forthepeople.com HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Schall Law Files Class Action Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on June 10 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. ("Hebron" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: HEBT) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before August 10, 2020. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Several of Hebron's acquisitions, such as Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., were actually deals with undisclosed related parties. The Company lacked sufficient controls over related-party transactions. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Hebron, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] HERTZ CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Snell-Jones Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LA TACHE SNELL-JONES, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00120 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Andrea R. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, (i) granted in part and denied in part Hertz's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and (ii) denied Haley Hudson's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Snell-Jones is a former branch manager for Defendant Hertz. Snell-Jones claims that despite routinely working over 40 hours in a workweek for Hertz, she never received overtime compensation. Instead, Hertz treated her as exempt from the overtime provisions in both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"). Therefore, Snell-Jones has brought the present collective and class action lawsuit against both Hertz and Defendant Hudson alleging violations of the FLSA, the IMWL, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), along with claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As alleged in her complaint, Snell-Jones worked at Hertz, a worldwide vehicle rental company, from October 2013 until her allegedly retaliatory termination in September 2017. She began as a manager trainee and shortly thereafter was promoted to manager associate. By October 2014, Snell-Jones had been promoted to a branch manager position, which she held until her termination. During her time at Hertz, Snell-Jones was a salaried employee. For that reason, Hertz treated her as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the IMWL. Indeed, Hertz had a policy that salaried managers were not entitled to overtime for any hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Nonetheless, Hudson maintained a policy under which all branch managers were required to work from open to close. For Snell-Jones, that meant she worked from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. for at least six days a week. Thus, from October 2014 until her termination on Aug. 14, 2017, Snell-Jones regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without ever receiving overtime. Moreover, in light of Hudson's policy requiring all branch managers to work full 11-hour days, 6 days a week, Snell-Jones contends that there are at least 100 other current or former Hertz branch managers under Hudson's supervision that have similarly been denied overtime. Snell-Jones has brought FLSA, IMWL, and IWCPA claims against both the Defendants, whereas her contract claims are brought solely against Hertz. Hertz and Hudson have each filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hertz argues that Snell-Jones' allegation that Hertz was her employer is conclusory and supported by no facts. It further contends that Snell-Jones' claim is belied by a charge of discrimination she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which lists a different entity known as Hertz Local Edition as her employer. Judge Wood finds that Snell-Jones' identification of Hertz Local Edition as her employer in the EEOC charge is an allegation on par with her identification in the complaint of Hertz as her employer. That allegation cannot establish beyond reasonable dispute that Snell-Jones's employer was, in fact, Hertz Local Edition as opposed to Hertz. Because the Judge cannot take judicial notice of the allegation in Snell-Jones' EEOC charge that Hertz Local Edition is her employer, her well-pleaded allegation in the complaint that Hertz is her employer must be accepted at true. For that reason, the Judge will not dismiss Snell-Jones's FLSA and IMWL claims on the basis that Hertz is not Snell-Jones' employer. In addition to Hertz, Snell-Jones also alleges that Hudson was an employer subject to liability under the FLSA and the IMWL. Snell-Jones alleges in the complaint that Hudson was directly responsible for ensuring compliance with state and federal law and the proper application of employment laws. The Judge holds that these allegations sufficient to plausibly plead Hudson's status as an employer. Snell-Jones' allegations adequately satisfy three of the four economic reality factors and only fail to address Hudson's role in determining the rate and method of payment. Specifically, Hudson was responsible for ensuring Hertz's compliance with employment laws, yet instituted a policy requiring branch managers to routinely work overtime for which they were not properly compensated. That is enough at this stage to plead Hudson's status as an employer. Both Hertz and Hudson contend that Snell-Jones failed to adequately plead facts establishing that she ever worked more than 40 hours in a week and was therefore entitled to overtime compensation. The Judge concludes that Snell-Jones has adequately pleaded that she worked 26 overtime hours a week for which she did not receive overtime compensation from Hertz. That is sufficient to state a claim under both the FLSA and the IMWL. Consequently, both Hertz and Hudson's motions to dismiss those claims are denied. Next, the Judge finds that Snell-Jones has adequately pleaded that Hudson knowingly permitted the IWPCA violation. Hudson was responsible for Hertz's compliance with employment laws. Yet, despite her awareness that Hertz did not pay branch managers overtime, Hudson instituted a policy requiring Snell-Jones and other branch managers to work over 40 hours in a workweek. These allegations are sufficient to show that Hudson was a Hertz agent who knowingly permitted the IWPCA violation, and therefore was an employer for purposes of the Act. Snell-Jones contends that the Defendants violated the IWPCA by failing to honor their written agreement to pay her overtime. In her complaint, Snell-Jones twice makes allegations concerning the existence of a written agreement. Given the broad understanding of the term "agreement" as used in the IWPCA, the Judge concurs with the decisions finding that an agreement to pay overtime in accordance with existing overtime laws is a cognizable agreement for IWPCA purposes. Thus, having pleaded the existence of an agreement by Hertz to pay her overtime consistent with the FLSA, Snell-Jones has stated an IWPCA claim. Consequently, the Judge denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss her IWPCA claim. Snell-Jones also brings claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Hertz based on its failure to honor the written contract to pay her overtime consistent with the FLSA's requirements. Because Snell-Jones fails to plead the existence of a valid and enforceable contract, that is sufficient to dismiss her contract claims without prejudice. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wood granted in part and denied in part Hertz's motion to dismiss. The Judge dismissed without prejudice Snell-Jones' breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. The Judge denied Hudson's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's March 13, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/dtOe4d from Leagle.com. La Tache Snell-Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by John H. Ray, III -- jray@rayandcounsel.com -- Ray Legal Consulting Group, P.C. Justin Hamby, Plaintiff, pro se. Marquail Johnson, Plaintiff, pro se. Sharon Hayes, Plaintiff, pro se. Tyler Odom, Plaintiff, pro se. The Hertz Corporation, Defendant, represented by Katherine Frances Mendez -- kmendez@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Sharilee Kempa Smentek -- ssmentek@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Thomas E. Ahlering -- tahlering@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. IANTHUS CAPITAL: Schall Law Firm Announces Filing of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against iAnthus Capital Holdings, Inc. (OTC: ITHUF) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 14, 2018 and April 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before June 15, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. iAnthus disclosed that it had failed to make certain interest payments, blaming its action on the "decline in the overall public equity cannabis markets, coupled with the extraordinary market conditions that began in Q1 2020 due to the novel coronavirus." The Company also admitted it had begun an internal investigation of related party transactions involving CEO Hadley Ford. Based on this news, shares of iAnthus fell by more than 62% on the same day. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., Web site: www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN] INFOSYS LTD: Faces Fresh Race Discrimination Suit in US ------------------------------------------------------- Deccan Herald reports that Indian IT giant Infosys is facing yet another charge of racisim in its U.S. arm. Davina Linguist has filed a class action alleging that Infosys 'retaliated' against her, for testifying in 2016 against the company. "Soon after the deposition, Infosys retaliated against Ms. Linguist, stripping her of her title as head of diversity recruiting (and replacing her with an individual with no relevant experience) and demoting her, among other improper conduct," the complaint said. Davina was the head of diversity recruiting at Infosys but was later demoted. Davina, who is a US national of African-American origin, says that she was forced to resign from the company on March 7, 2017. The case is Davina Linguist vs. Infosys Limited, Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-465 (E.D. Tex.). [GN] INNOVATIVE TELESERVICES: Faces Telemarketing Suit From Perrong -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW PERRONG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INNOVATIVE TELESERVICES, INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11580-AJT-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 15, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent pre-recorded telephone calls to telephone numbers that were charged per the call, including the Plaintiff, and cellular telephones, which is prohibited by the TCPA. The Plaintiff did not consent to receive the call, which was placed to him for purposes of soliciting payments. Because automated calling campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal calls from or on behalf of Defendant. Further, the Defendant's strategy for generating new customers involves the use of an automatic telephone dialing system sending out pre-recorded messages known as an "avatar" to solicit business. Innovative Teleservices, Inc. is in the business of providing teleservices for third party companies based in Port Huron, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com INT'L PAPER: Bids to Exclude Expert Testimonies in Slocum Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHIRLEY SLOCUM, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL. DERRICK SANDERS, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL. BRENT JARRELL, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL., SECTION "L" (1), Civil Action No. 16-12563, No. 16-12567., 16-13793 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motions to Exclude Defendant's Experts Gale Hoffnagle and Glenn Millner; (ii) denied the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Patrick Campbell; and (iii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Redefine the Class Definition. The case arises out of damages allegedly sustained by the Plaintiffs as a result of a discharge of "black liquor" at the Bogalusa Paper Mill. The Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendant International Paper. Their theories of liability sound in negligence, strict liability, and nuisance. Black liquor is a by-product of the paper making process. Black liquor is typically recycled in evaporator tanks for repeated use in the pulping process. On June 10, 2015, the sight glass on an evaporator tank containing black liquor ruptured at the Bogalusa Paper Mill, which resulted in a stream of black liquor erupting several feet into the air and dispersing into the atmosphere. The next day, the Defendant advised the media that there was a "slight leak" in a process unit that led to the dispersal of diluted black liquor, but that Defendant was "confident that there is no risk to human health or the environment." The Plaintiffs disagree. They contend that the dispersal of black liquor caused personal injury, property damage and/or emotional distress, and argue the Defendant is liable for their damages. For example, the Welch Plaintiffs claim the dispersal caused a black mist to descend on their house, and that the mist stuck the exposed skin of themselves and their children. For a few days after, the Welches experienced itchy, burning, watery eyes, and headaches with throat and upper respiratory irritation. The Welches concede that their physical symptoms cleared in a short period of time, but argue they continue to suffer emotional distress and fear about a reoccurrence of the event. The other Plaintiffs claim similar damages. On May 21, 2019, the Court certified the matter as an issue-based class action. The class consisted of all persons or entities who were physically present or owned property within Bogalusa, Louisiana, Parish of Washington on June 10, 2015, and who sustained injuries or damages as a result of the discharge of 'black liquor' at the Bogalusa Paper Mill owned by the International Paper Co. Having completed additional discovery, the Defendant now seeks to redefine the class more narrowly as follows: All persons or entities who were physically present or owned property within the following boundaries on June 10, 2015 and who sustained injuries or damages as a result of the discharge of black liquor at the Bogalusa Paper Mill owned by the International Paper Co.: Northern boundary: Mississippi Avenue, Bogalusa, Louisiana; Eastern boundary - Richmond Street, Bogalusa, Louisiana/S. Columbia Street, Bogalusa, Louisiana; Southern boundary - Willis Avenue, Bogalusa, Louisiana; and Western boundary - Cumberland Street, Bogalusa, Louisiana. Defendant bases this class definition on evidence produced by Class Representatives, reports by the Bogalusa Police and Fire The Departments, and the conclusions of defense experts. In particular, it relies on the expert report of Dr. Timothy Myers, an engineer who concluded that 773 gallons of black liquor was released during the event. It also relies on the expert report of Gale Hoffnagle, a meteorologist and air quality modeler, who analyzed the path, air concentrations, and deposition of the black liquor release. Relying on the data provided by Dr. Myers and weather data from IP's weather station, the National Weather Service, and the United States Geological Survey, Mr. Hoffnagle opines that the plume traveled exclusively in a north-ward direction and that airborne concentrations and deposition of black liquor droplets per square meter was confined to distances of no more than 2000 meters north and northeast of the release point. The Defendant lastly relies on the expert report of Dr. Glenn Millner, a toxicologist and risk assessment expert, who concluded that any individual located outside of the proposed boundary could not have sustained any adverse physical effects from the exposure. In addition, it sought to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert Patrick Campbell. R. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion, contending that the class definition should not be redefined, or alternatively, defined to encompass those individuals located within the following boundaries: Northern Boundary - Intersection of Highway 21 and 436; Western Boundary - Powerline Road; Eastern Boundary - Pearl River Waterway; and Southern Boundary - Davenport Road. The Plaintiffs base these boundaries on the conclusions of Dr. Williams and Dr. Campbell. In particular, Dr. Williams calculated that between 2,160 and 3,240 gallons of black liquor were discharged over the course of the thirty-eight-minute incident. Based on Dr. Williams's calculations, as well as the data provided by Defendants, Dr. Campbell used HYSPLIT to model the path of the plume. The HYSPLIT model revealed that the plume traveled much further than the Defendant's model suggests. In addition, the Plaintiffs sought to exclude the testimony of the Defendant's experts Gale Hoffnagle. A hearing was held on Nov. 12 and 13, 2019 to allow the parties to present evidence in support of their respective positions. Following the hearing, the Court instructed the parties to discuss, and prepare post-hearing memoranda about, two inter-related issues: (1) the amount of black liquor released during the incident, and (2) the geographic area over which the released black liquor was dispersed. In its post-hearing brief, the Plaintiffs conceded that the south-western most boundary of the release was Avenue H. R. Accordingly, Plaintiffs propose redefining the class to include anyone located, or anyone owning property located within the following boundary: Northern Boundary - Intersection of Highway 21 and 436; Western Boundary - Powerline Road to Willis Avenue, east on Willis Avenue to Avenue H, and south on Avenue H to Davenport Road; Eastern Boundary - Pearl River Waterway; and Southern Boundary - Davenport Road. The Defendant's proposed boundaries also changed after the hearing. In its post-hearing brief, the Defendants ask the Court to redefine the class to include anyone or anyone owning property located within the following perimeter: Northern Boundary - Redmond Street; Eastern Boundary - Richmond Street; Southern Boundary - Willis Avenue; and Western Boundary - Railroad tracks. Recognizing the importance of the motion and the complexity of the factual issues involved, the Court, after notifying the parties, traveled to Bogalusa, Louisiana, on Feb. 4, 2020 to better understand the geography of the area and the proximity of the third effect evaporator to a number of affected sites. It together with the attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Defendant inspected the area in dispute. Before addressing the motion to redefine the class, Judge Fallon first discusses the parties' respective motions to exclude expert testimony from the November 12th and 13th hearing. The Judge found that Dr. Campbell has extensive credentials in the area of meteorology and offered testimony regarding a highly technical matter in the case. The use of the HYSPLIT model is a "scientifically verifiable" method of determining where the black liquor plume traveled after the incident. Further, the HYSPLIT model has been used for over thirty years in the industry and specifically uses an ensemble approach to produce a viable range of outcomes. Similarly, Mr. Hoffnagle holds multiple degrees and certifications in meteorology and has previously testified in numerous state and federal courts regarding air modeling. Furthermore, the Defendants have provided detailed explanations for the alleged omissions in Mr. Hoffnagle's report, which is based on a widely accepted air modeling software system and data collected from the IP weather station itself. Lastly, Dr. Glenn Millner is a professional toxicologist who has previously been testified before the Court in Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. His testimony regarding the chemical composition of the black liquor and its potential health affects is the product of his experience in the field and knowledge of the subject matter. To the extent the adverse parties disagreed with the data or methodologies employed by these experts, the parties had ample opportunities to vigorously cross-examine the witness. Finding that any critique of their methodologies and conclusion affected the weight of their opinions and not their admissibility, the Judge denies all three motions. He then turns to the motion to redefine the class. Having presided over a two-day hearing, read the parties' informative briefs, and visited the site of the release event in person, the Judge concludes that the geographic scope of the class depends on two factors: (1) how much black liquor was released into the air during the release event; and (2) where the black liquor was dispersed. The Judge is convinced that approximately 773 gallons of black liquor were released during the release event. Dr. Myer explained that Dr. William's two-phase release, first purely vapor and the second purely liquid, erroneously relied on the assumption that the entire effect was filled with black liquor liquid at the time of the release. However, he notes that the level sensors in the PI data indicated that at the time of the release, the evaporator was not full of black liquor. Therefore, the Defendants successfully demonstrated a lack of evidence to support Dr. Williams' theory regarding a "liquid only" phase of the release. Finding Dr. Myer's credible and his testimony thorough and convincing, the Judge will adopt his calculations with respect to the volume of the release. Next, the Judge concludes that AERMOD model is most representative of the release event. AERMOD is a model developed by the American Meteorological Society and the Environmental Protection Agency. Unlike HYSPLIT, the AERMOD model incorporated both surface weather conditions from the IP weather station and the vertical conditions from the Slidell weather balloon. Furthermore, Dr. Campbell testified that Mr. Hoffnagel's "unabridged" AERMOD model was very consistent and is comparable with the HYSPLIT modeling of the Most Likely Geographic Boundaries of the Release. Considering the unabridged AERMOD model and the testimony of fact witnesses who were south of the third effect evaporator at the time of the release, the Judge concludes that individuals who could potentially have viable claims against the Defendant must have been in the area within the orange isopleth on the AERMOD model depicting deposition. The area is substantially larger than the area in which airborne concentrations were at least 1 mg/m3, the maximum area in which individuals could have experienced adverse health effects. At this stage, the Judge is merely trying to determine the maximum size of the class, rather than test the viability of individual claims. Accordingly, using a larger geographic footprint based on deposition rates is preferable to the smaller scope produced by considering airborne concentration alone. Therefore, the relevant geographic scope in this case can be defined by reference to streets as follows: Northern Boundary - Derbigny Street to Austin Street, north on Austin Street to Bayer Street, east on Bayer Street; Eastern Boundary - Columbia Street to Saba Street, east on Saba Street to Florence Avenue, south on Florence Avenue to North Avenue, east on North Ave to Ruby Road, south on Ruby Road; Southern Boundary - St Lewis Street to New Orleans Street to West 12th Street; and Western Boundary - Avenue F to Willis Avenue to Madison Street. He believes that the rectangle formed by these boundaries represents the maximum area in which any Plaintiff with viable claims against IP must have been located, or had property located, at the time of the release. The perimeter encompasses the area in which the deposition of black liquor were at least .01 grams per square meter. At the hearing, the Defense counsel illustrated that it is the equivalent of one pushpin spread out over 100 square meters. The Judge concludes that it represents the maximum range in which any individual could have suffered cognizable property damage and nuisance claims. The Judge further notes that this perimeter aligns with the testimony of fact witnesses such as Major Tervalon, who testified that while he was on Avenue H between 5th and 6th Street, he didn't notice any black liquor on the street. To the extent the class definition captures individuals who were not actually harmed by the release, the parties will have the opportunity to challenge those claims at later stages in the litigation. Considering the foregoing, Judge Fallon denied (i) the Plaintiffs' Motions to Exclude Defendant's Experts Gale Hoffnagle and Glenn Millner; and (ii) the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Patrick Campbell. The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Redefine the Class Definition. It is granted to the extent Defendant seeks to redefine the class. It is denied with respect to the specific definition the Defendant proposes. The Class Definition be redefined as: All persons or entities who were physically present or owned property within the following boundaries on June 10, 2015 and who sustained injuries or damages as a result of the discharge of black liquor at the Bogalusa Paper Mill owned by the International Paper Company: Northern Boundary - Derbigny Street to Austin Street, north on Austin Street to Bayer Street, east on Bayer Street; Eastern Boundary - Columbia Street to Saba Street, east on Saba Street to Florence Avenue, south on Florence Avenue to North Avenue, east on North Ave to Ruby Road, south on Ruby Road; Southern Boundary - St Lewis Street to New Orleans Street to West 12th Street; and Western Boundary - Avenue F to Willis Avenue to Madison Street. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 10, 2020 Order & Reasons is available at https://is.gd/RDMBGC from Leagle.com. Shirley Slocum, et al. are represented by Shawn C. Reed, Esq. -- sreed@howardandreed.com -- D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Esq. -- dhoward@howardandreed.com -- Jonathan C. Pedersen, Esq. -- jpedersen@howardandreed.com -- Kyle T. Del Hierro, Esq. -- kdelhierro@howardandreed.com -- HOWARD & REED International Paper Company is represented by Tim Gray, Esq. -- tim.gray@formanwatkins.com -- Erin Wedge Latuso, Esq. -- erin.latuso@formanwatkins.com -- and Thomas Peyton Smith, Esq. -- peyton.smith@formanwatkins.com -- FORMAN, WATKINS, & KRUTZ, LLP. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Issuance of Notice in Rusis Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EDVIN RUSIS, HENRY GERRITS, PHIL McGONEGAL, and DAVID HO ENG, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-8434 (VEC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Plaintiffs' motion for issuance of notice. The case is a putative collective action against Plaintiffs' former employer, IBM, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). The Plaintiffs allege that since the early 2010s, IBM has laid off or otherwise forced its older workers out of the company in a systematic effort to replace them with new hires from the "Millennial" generation. The four named Plaintiffs worked in various jobs and locations at IBM up until their separation in March and June 2018. They most recently held positions as global commodity manager, solution manager for IBM's global system integrator alliances, second line manager of IBM's asset management organization, and senior IT specialist. They reside in cities on both coasts and worked for IBM in California, North Carolina, Georgia, and New Jersey. IBM is a technology company with a complex business organization: it is divided into multiple groups and sub-units with thousands of teams. Today, it has three main business segments addressing different areas of the company's business: Global Business Services, Global Technology Services, and Systems. The Plaintiffs allege that IBM, in a company-wide effort to replace older employees with younger hires, discriminated against employees in all segments of the company across all job classifications across the entire nation by forcing them to depart because of their advanced age. Its policy and practice, according to the Plaintiffs, was part of a strategic program to better compete with rivals in the emerging technology sectors of cloud services, big data analytics, mobile security, and social media, internally referred to as "CAMS." ProPublica reported that IBM believed that "CAMS are driven by Millennial traits" and sought to sharply increase hiring of people born after 1980. In an unflattering comparison between "Baby Boomer" employees and employees from younger generations, an internal IBM report from 2006 referred to the former as "gray hairs" and "old heads" and stated that "successor generations are generally much more innovative. IBM allegedly used several methods to reduce its population of older workers and to phase in younger replacements. Those methods, according to the Plaintiffs, included terminating older employees for pretextual reasons, constructively discharging them, or imposing unreasonable conditions on their continued employment, while shielding younger employees in the company from similar conditions. The Plaintiffs propose a nationwide collective encompassing all former employees over the age of 40 who left IBM after July 2017. That definition includes almost 13,000 individuals. They bear a heavier-than-usual burden of showing that a discriminatory nationwide policy or plan infected all of IBM's employment separation decisions, regardless of the context or circumstances of separation. The Plaintiffs seek a court-facilitated notice of the action to potential opt-in members of the ADEA collective. Their proposed notice would be given to all individuals who worked for IBM in the United States over 40 years of age whose employment with IBM ended (either because of layoff, discharge, or voluntarily -- and thus may have been constructively discharged) any time since July 14, 2017. Judge Caproni finds that the universe of former employees to which the Plaintiffs wish to provide notice might contain within it one or even several groups of former employees who are similarly situated to each other, but they've not met their burden of tying all former employees who are in their proposed collective to a common policy or plan. No case cited by the Plaintiffs provides for notice to as vast a group as sought. Judge Caproni therefore declines to give the Plaintiffs' proposed notification imprimatur. That should not dissuade aggrieved former employees of IBM from pursuing their rights under the ADEA, whether by opting into the lawsuit or filing suit independently. The Plaintiffs are, however, not entitled to court-assisted notice on the scale requested. For the reasons stated, Judge Caproni denied the Plaintiffs' motion for issuance of notice. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 10, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/3rXs1q from Leagle.com. Edvin Rusis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Henry Gerrits, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Phil McGonegal, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals & David Ho Eng, Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas Fowler -- tfowler@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice & Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC. International Business Machines Corp., Defendant, represented by Matthew Willis Lampe -- mwlampe@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Alison B. Marshall -- abmarshall@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice & James M. Jones -- jmjones@jonesday.com -- Jones Day. INTEROIL CORP: Fifth Cir. Appeal Filed in Block Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Kim C. Block and Melanie A. Cissone filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Kim Block, et al. v. Interoil Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:18-CV-7, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to pursue remedies under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933. The Plaintiff held approximately 7,850 shares of InterOil stock as of January 10, 2017. It was acquired by an affiliate of Exxon for $45.00. As a result of this, Plaintiff was forced to sell her InterOil shares and purchase Exxon shares. Said acquisition of Exxon shares by Defendants to InterOil shareholders was allegedly by means of a false and misleading prospectus, mainly an oilfield exploration in the Gulf Province of Papua New Guinea that failed to produce oil. Defendants prevented InterOil shareholders from accurately valuing the contingent resource payment in connection with the acquisition, i.e. volume uncertainties of the failed oilfield, potentially costing InterOil shareholders hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in additional merger consideration. The appellate case is captioned as Kim Block, et al. v. Interoil Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:18-CV-7, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KIM C. BLOCK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and MELANIE A. CISSONE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, L.L.P. 3811 Turtle Creek Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com Defendants-Appellees INTEROIL CORPORATION, EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, MICHAEL HESSION, CHEE KEONG YAP, DR. ELLIS ARMSTRONG, FORD GRANT NICHOLSON, ISIKELI REUBEN TAUREKA, SIR WILSON KAMIT, and SIR RABBIE L. NAMALIU are represented by: Daniel H. Gold, Esq. HAYNES & BOONE, L.L.P. 2323 Victory Avenue Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 651-5154 E-mail: daniel.gold@haynesboone.com IQIYI INC: Le Rivage Sues Over Precipitous Decline in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- LE RIVAGE LLC, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. IQIYI, INC., YU GONG, and XIAODONG WANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02653 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired iQIYI securities between March 29, 2018 and April 7, 2020, inclusive wherein Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, on October 30, 2018, iQIYI stated that it had "cleaned up some not so healthy advertisements on the in-feed side" by "let[ting] go" of customers who lacked "documents to prove they are qualified advertisers." On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.56, or nearly 12%, to close at $19.64 per share on October 31, 2018. On April 7, 2020, during market hours, 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, including: (i) iQIYI overstating its user numbers; (ii) iQIYI inflating its revenues; (iii) iQIYI inflating expenses and prices of assets to conceal its revenue inflation; and (iv) iQIYI misleading financial reporting creating the appearance of a cash generative company. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.99 per share, or nearly 6%, to close at $16.51 per share on April 8, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint asserts that 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: (i) that the Company's advertising growth rate was overstated; (ii) that the Company had inflated its revenue metrics; (iii) that the Company had inflated its user numbers; (iv) that iQIYI inflated its expenses to cover up other fraud; and (v) 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. Plaintiff Le Rivage LLC purchased iQIYI securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions alleged herein. iQIYI, Inc., "the Netflix of China," purports to be an innovative market leading online entertainment service in China.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com JAY-BEE OIL: Ash-Young Class Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Judith E. Ash-Young, individually and on behalf of all other persons and entities similarly situated v. Jay-Bee Oil & Gas, Inc., Jay-Bee Production Company, JB Exploration I, LLC, Jay-Bee Royalty, LLC, Randall J. Broda, Case No. 20-C-20, was removed from the West Virginia Circuit Court, Tyler County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on June 11, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00110-JPB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Jay-Bee Oil & Gas, Inc., was founded in 1989. The Company's line of business includes performing geophysical, geological, and other exploration services for oil and gas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Michael Benninger, Esq. BENNINGER LAW P O Box 623 154 Pleasant Street Morgantown, WV 26507 Phone: (304) 241-1856 Fax: (304) 241-1857 Email: mike@benningerlaw.com - and - Jenny L. Hayhurst, Esq. Timothy R. Linkous, Esq. LINKOUS LAW, PLLC 179 Hanalei Drive, Suite 100 Morgantown, WV 26508 Phone: (304) 554-2400 Fax: (304) 554-2401 Email: tim@linkouslawpllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Brent D. Benjamin, Esq. Charles R. Bailey, Esq. BAILEY & WYANT PLLC PO Box 3710 500 Virginia Street, Suite 600 Charleston, WV 25337-3710 Phone: (304) 345-4222 Fax: (304) 343-3133 Email: bbenjamin@baileywyant.com cbailey@baileywyant.com - and - David M. Bates, Esq. Rhonda Weiner, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 600 17th Street, Suite 2020S Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (720) 437-2000 Fax: (720) 437-2200 Email: dbates@foley.com rweiner@foley.com - and - Michael D. Leffel, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 150 E. Gilman St. Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 257-5035 Email: mleffel@foley.com - and - Shane McDonald, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 1000 Lousiana Street, Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77002-2099 Phone: (713) 276-5500 Fax: (713) 276-5555 Email: smcdonald@foley.com JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Delays Generic Drug Competition, BCBSA Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE CARRIER FOR THE SERVICE BENEFIT PLAN, A/K/A THE "FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PROGRAM," A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS ACT PLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; EUROHEALTH (USA), INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; LUPIN LTD.; LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; and LUPIN INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03543 (N.D. Ill., June 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2, monopolization and monopolistic scheme under state law, conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade under state law, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, on behalf of the members and beneficiaries of the Service Benefit Plan a/k/a the Federal Employee Program and on behalf of all individual persons or entities in the United States and its territories that purchased, paid for and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Xyrem from Jazz Pharmaceuticals or any agents, predecessors, or successors, starting January 1, 2018, alleges that Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals, a drug company that manufactures and sells sodium oxybate drug called Xyrem, is engaged in anticompetitive schemes to impair and delay generic competition in the market for sodium oxybate oral solution. These schemes include: (1) acquiring and enforcing bogus patents, (2) prosecuting citizen petitions before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that had no realistic likelihood of success, (3)and abusing the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS)-related FDA approval conditions for Xyrem to frustrate efforts by would be generic competitors to gain FDA approval for their own generic versions of the product. As a result of the illegal monopolization and market restriction agreements of Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals and other Defendant conspirators, the Plaintiff and Class members are forced to pay artificially-inflated, supracompetitive prices for Xyrem. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) is a national association of 36 independent and locally operated Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies providing health plans to over 107 million members nationwide, with principal place of business located at 225 North Michigan Ave., Chicago, Illinois. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. Its U.S. headquarters is located at 3170 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, California. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited is a pharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company is an Ireland public limited biopharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. It is the parent company of Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited. Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC is a multinational pharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, with its principal place of business at 1 New Burlington Place, London, W1S 2HR and its U.S. headquarters at 246 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 246 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, with its principal place of business at 1809 Wilson Road, Columbus, Ohio. Eurohealth (USA), Inc. is a holding company for Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 246 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC is a limited liability company that manufactures and supplies generic pharmaceuticals organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 400 Crossing Boulevard, Bridgewater, New Jersey. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at One Ram Ridge Rd., Chestnut Ridge, New York. Lupin Ltd. is a public limited company organized and existing under the laws of India, with its principal place of business at B/4 Laxmi Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051, India. Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111 South Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland. Lupin Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111 South Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 Facsimile: (708) 628-4950 E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com whitneys@hbsslaw.com - and – Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Lauren G. Barnes, Esq. Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com lauren@hbsslaw.com bradleyv@hbsslaw.com - and – Brendan G. Stuhan, Esq. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION 1310 G Street, N.W., 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 942-1069 Facsimile: (202) 942-1143 E-mail: brendan.stuhan@bcbsa.com - and – Mark Fischer, Esq. Jeffrey Swann, Esq. Robert C. Griffith, Esq. RAWLINGS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1 Eden Parkway La Grange, KY 40031 Telephone: (502) 814-2139 E-mail: mdf@rawlingsandassociates.com js5@rawlingsandassociates.com rg1@rawlingsandassociates.com JOHN DOE CORP: Underpays Staff, Rosendo Claims ---------------------------------------------- JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ ROSENDO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- JOHN DOE CORP. (D/B/A JIREH TIRE) and GERSHOM LORDSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04656 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law as well as the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Martinez was employed as a tire worker and cashier at the Tire Dealer and Repair Shop located in New York, New York. Mr. Martinez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. John Doe Corp., doing business as Jireh Tire, owns, operates, or controls a tire dealer and repair shop in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 K&K HOLDINGS: Ritter Sues Over Inappropriately Withheld Tips ------------------------------------------------------------ Morgan Ritter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. K&K HOLDINGS OF FORT WAYNE, LLC d/b/a THE HAREM OF FORT WAYNE; MICHAEL K. FOX; KATHERINE H. FOX; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00224 (N.D. Ind., June 12, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including inappropriately withheld tips, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Indiana common law. Under applicable employment laws, all employees are entitled to a defined minimum wage and are protected from having improper deductions taken from their wages, including their tips, the Plaintiff notes. However, she contends, the Defendants improperly classified her and other exotic entertainers as "independent contractors." Consequently, the Defendants failed to pay the Dancers at least the applicable minimum wage. Further, the Defendants improperly collected a portion of the tips the Plaintiff and other Dancers receive from customers, says the complaint. Plaintiff Morgan Ritter is a resident and citizen of the State of Indiana, who was employed by the Defendants as a "Dancer." K&K Holdings of Fort Wayne, LLC, doing business as The Harem of Fort Wayne, is an Indiana Limited Liability Company with its principal address located in Fort Wayne, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com llafornara@cohenandmalad.com - and - Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. James P. McGraw, Esq. Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: eciolko@carlsonlynch.com glynch@carlsonlynch.com jmcgraw@carlsonlynch.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. GRay, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Phone: 610-822-3700 Facsimile: 610-822-3800 Email: gwells@cwglaw.com rgray@cwglaw.com KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on June 10 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned Venkataraman v. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., et al., (Case No. 20-cv-5171) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. ("Kandi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KNDI) securities between June 10, 2015 and March 13, 2017, 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 10, 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 Kandi 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. 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 November 14, 2016, the Company announced the abrupt resignation of its Chief Financial Officer. On this news, Kandi's share price fell $0.40 per share, or more than 10%, to close at $3.50 per share on November 14, 2016, damaging investors. On March 13, 2017, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC revealing that its previously issued financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the first three quarters for the year ended December 31, 2016 will need to be restated. On this news, Kandi's share price fell $0.30 per share, or approximately 6%, to close at $4.05 per share on March 14, 2017, further damaging investors. 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 certain areas in the Company's previously issued financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the first three quarters for the year ended December 31, 2016 required adjustment; (2) that in turn, the Company lacked effective controls over financial reporting; and (3) that as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased Kandi securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from June 10, 2020, 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] KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. ("Kandi" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: KNDI) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between June 10, 2015 and March 13, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before August 10, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Kandi was forced to make adjustments to multiple financial reports. The reports in question include its financial statements for the years ending December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the first three quarters for the year ended December 31, 2016. The Company failed to maintain appropriate controls on financial reporting. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Kandi, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., Web site: www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN] L'OREAL USA: Averts Cosmetics Packaging Class Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Nelson, writing for HBW Insight, reports that L'Oreal USA beat a suit in May in New York regarding liquid cosmetics packaging, which plaintiffs alleged cheated consumers out of product they expected to be accessible, only to face a newly proposed class action, filed in California on June 5, over an alleged Clarisonic waterproofing defect. [GN] LAUNDRY DEPOT: Faces Leong Suit Over Employment Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- NYOK MOY LEONG, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LAUNDRY DEPOT, LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot, LAUNDRY DEPOT #IV, LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot Four d/b/a Laundry Depot, LAUNDRY DEPOT #V, LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot Four d/b/a Laundry Depot, FA SUPER LAUNDROMAT CORP. d/b/a Laundry Depot 5th Avenue d/b/a Laundry Depot, EAST ISLIP SUPER LAUNDROMAT CORP. d/b/a Laundry Depot, ITP LAUNDROMAT CORP. d/b/a I.T.P. Laundromat d/b/a Laundry Depot, LAUNDRY DEPOT, III LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot, BAYSHORE LAUNDRY, LLC. d/b/a South Shore Laundromat d/b/a Laundry Depot, LAUNDRY DEPOT II LLC d/b/a South Shore Laundromat d/b/a Laundry Depot, F.A. PLAZA LAUNDROMAT CORP. d/b/a King Laundromat d/b/a Laundry Depot, TOMMY NGAI LAU a/k/a Tommy Lau a/k/a Ngai Lau, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02637 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to remedy claims of employment discrimination on the basis of age pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and the Suffolk County Human Rights Law ("SCHRL"), and on the basis of disability pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the NYSHRL, and the SCHRL. Plaintiff is a 65-year-old woman who was employed by the Defendants as a laundromat worker first in 2008, and then again from on or about August 08, 2011 until her termination on or about May 23, 2019. Plaintiff was the most senior employee at Laundry Depot 107, Laundry Depot 1639, and Laundry Depot 1559, and as a result was responsible for doing the invoices every day, among her other duties. On April 17, 2018, Plaintiff suffered an injury that caused her pain when performing some of her duties for the Defendants, including bending down to reach laundered clothes stored below counter space. On February 20, 2019, severe osteoarthritis was found in her right knee. Defendants failed to offer her any accommodations. On or about April 25, 2018, Plaintiff went to see Dr. Siu to have her injury examined. Dr. Siu prescribed Plaintiff naproxen for her pain. On or about May 7, 2018, Plaintiff returned to Dr. Siu for a follow-up examination. Although Plaintiff did not have any broken bones, she still felt pain every time she had to bend down to the bottom shelf of the Laundry Depot. The Laundry Depot had surveillance cameras which captured Plaintiff’s every movement within the laundromat. As a result, Defendants would have known from the footage that Plaintiff was experiencing pain every time she had to bend down to the bottom shelf. On or about May 22, 2019, when Plaintiff was scheduled to go to work in the afternoon, she was terminated by her boss, TOMMY NGAI LAU a/k/a Tommy Lau a/k/a Ngai Lau. The boss never attempted to talk with Plaintiff or engaged in any other interactive process regarding how she could continue her work even with her physical limitations. Instead, he only attempted to get rid of Plaintiff. Plaintiff brings her claims arising under ADEA individually and on behalf of all other and former non-exempt employees over the age of 40, who have been or were employed by the Defendants for up to the last three years, through entry of judgment in this case, and who were terminated or had the terms and conditions of their employment adversely altered because of their age. LAUNDRY DEPOT, LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot, LAUNDRY DEPOT #IV, LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot Four d/b/a Laundry Depot, LAUNDRY DEPOT #V, LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot Four d/b/a Laundry Depot, FA SUPER LAUNDROMAT CORP. d/b/a Laundry Depot 5th Avenue d/b/a Laundry Depot, EAST ISLIP SUPER LAUNDROMAT CORP. d/b/a Laundry Depot, ITP LAUNDROMAT CORP. d/b/a I.T.P. Laundromat d/b/a Laundry Depot, LAUNDRY DEPOT, III LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot, BAYSHORE LAUNDRY, LLC. d/b/a South Shore Laundromat d/b/a Laundry Depot, LAUNDRY DEPOT II LLC d/b/a South Shore Laundromat d/b/a Laundry Depot, F.A. PLAZA LAUNDROMAT CORP. d/b/a King Laundromat d/b/a Laundry Depot are laundry service providers based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Faces Watson TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Texts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Watson and Daniel Samarghitan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEXUS OF MANHATTAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-04572 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to stop its practice of sending unsolicited text messages to telephones of consumers nationwide in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. The TCPA strictly forbids nuisance text messages exactly like those alleged in this Complaint--intrusive text messages to private cellular phones whose phone numbers are obtained without prior express consent of call recipients, and texts made to those on the Do Not Call list. The Plaintiffs contend that the actions of Lexus of Manhattan violated the statutory rights of both the Plaintiffs and thousands of other class members. Specifically, Lexus did not maintain a written policy for keeping an internal call list, did not train personnel engaged in telemarketing how to handle do not call requests, and did not have a policy or procedure in place to record when an individual requested to be put an on entity's do not call list, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are residents of New York. Lexus of Manhattan is a business the principal purpose of which is to engage in car sales and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Phone: 862-227-3106 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Action Seeks Covid-19 Insurance Coverage -------------------------------------------------------------- Harris Martin Publishing reports that a New Jersey cardiologist has filed a proposed class action against Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., demanding coverage of business losses caused by government closure orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In a complaint filed on April 30 and removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 10, Dr. Constantine Rossakis MD, PC says the orders caused "direct physical loss or damage to covered property at the insured premises." Rossakis further asserts that the policy does not provide any exclusion due to losses to business or property. [GN] LLOYDS LONDON: Faces RJH Suit Over Denial of Insurance Coverage --------------------------------------------------------------- RJH Management Corp. d/b/a Golden Corral, and all others similarly situated v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London Subscribing to Policy Certificate No. TNR 19 8538, Case No. 3:20-cv-03143-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill., June 11, 2020), arises from the Defendants' denial of insurance coverage for restaurant closures and the resulting loss of business due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff and its affiliates were forced to close their restaurants and have been unable to maintain their business operations and have suffered extensive loss of business income as a result, according to the complaint. Like many small business and restaurant owners, the Plaintiff needed protection against unforeseen events that could affect its business operations and profits and invested in a commercial insurance policy for itself and its affiliated Golden Corral franchise locations from the Defendants, Policy Certificate No. TNR 19 8538 (the "Policy"), which included a Pandemic Event Endorsement ("Pandemic Endorsement"). The Plaintiff says it paid premiums to the Defendants for the Policy, and as COVID-19 forced states to close businesses, the Plaintiff sought relief via the Policy and Pandemic Endorsement by submitting a claim to the Defendants for its covered losses. Instead of acknowledging that the Pandemic Endorsement covered its loss of business income due to the pandemic, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants "tentatively" denied its claim. In denying the Plaintiff's claim, the Defendants wrongfully asserted that its losses were not due to a "Covered Disease" because, according to the Defendants, SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing the pandemic) is not a variant of the SARS virus, according to the complaint. The Defendants then followed their "tentative" denial with a representation that they would "process" the Plaintiff's claim "as if" it was covered under the Pandemic Endorsement, yet all the while continuing to reserve their rights to deny coverage before any actual payment on the claim is made. The Defendants have not withdrawn their "tentative" denial of the Plaintiff's claim. The Defendants have continued to reserve their rights to deny coverage, and the Defendants engaged in delay tactics when they should be fully covering the claim, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendants have improperly failed to acknowledge coverage without reservation under the terms of the governing Pandemic Endorsement. The Plaintiff is a franchisee of Golden Corral, a sit-down, family style buffet restaurant chain that is entirely reliant on in-person diners. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, are an association of underwriters and/or individual insurance companies organized and existing under the laws of a foreign sovereign (the United Kingdom, except where noted) that sold or subscribed to the insurance policy at issue.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. John P. Bjork, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, P.C. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 641-3200 - and - David E. Woodward, Esq. R. Brian Woodward, Esq. WOODWARD LAW OFFICES, LLP 200 East 90th Drive Merrillville, IN 46410 LOCAL CANTINA: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Smith Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey Smith, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Local Cantina, LLC; Local Cantina German Village, LLC; Local Cantina Clintonville, Local Cantina Creekside LLC; LLC; Local Cantina Dayton LLC; Local Cantina Dragon LLC; Local Cantina Dublin LLC; Local Cantina Gahanna LLC; Local Cantina Grandview LLC; Local Cantina Grove City LLC; Local Cantina Hilliard LLC; Local Cantina Holdings LLC; Local Cantina II, LLC; Local Cantina New Albany LLC; Local Cantina Polaris LLC; Local Cantina Properties LLC; Local Cantina Rossi LLC; Local Cantina Trolley LLC; Local Cantina Union Club LLC; George Tanchevski; John Doe Corporations 1-10; John Doe 1-10; Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03064-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, June 15, 2020) arises after Defendants adopted a new employment policy for their Local Cantina restaurants that now applies to their servers and bartenders in May 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, that is designed to maximize the amount of money that may be treated as forgivable under any Paycheck Protection Program loan Defendants may have received. According to the complaint, under Defendants' new policy, the tipped workers receive more money in the form of wages paid by the employer, but are deprived of their tips, which are retained by Defendants. As a result, upon information and belief, Defendants seek to compensate their employees using 100% forgivable PPP loan money, and simultaneously retain tips paid by customers to the tipped workers. This action seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and damages under the theory of unjust enrichment as a result of Defendants' policy. Local Cantina, LLC; Local Cantina German Village, LLC; Local Cantina Clintonville, LLC; Local Cantina Creekside LLC; Local Cantina Dayton LLC; Local Cantina Dragon LLC; Local Cantina Dublin LLC; Local Cantina Gahanna LLC; Local Cantina Grandview LLC; Local Cantina Grove City LLC; Local Cantina Hilliard LLC; Local Cantina Holdings LLC; Local Cantina II, LLC; Local Cantina New Albany LLC; Local Cantina Polaris LLC; Local Cantina Properties LLC; Local Cantina Rossi LLC; Local Cantina Trolley LLC; and Local Cantina Union Club LLC, are domestic limited liability restaurant companies with their principal places of business in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com - and - Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Louise M. Roselle, Esq. Nathan J. Spencer, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com lroselle@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com LOUISIANA: Court Grants Tellis' Bid to Amend Prisoners Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANTHONY TELLIS, ET AL. v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, ET AL, Civil Action No. 18-cv-0541 (W.D. La.), Judge Elizabeth Erny Foote of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division, granted the Plaintiffs' (i) second motion to amend their complaint, and (ii) their associated motion to supplement their memorandum in support of their motion for class certification. The Magistrate Judge granted leave to add the Advocacy Center as an associational Plaintiff, a ruling that the undersigned ultimately affirmed on appeal. While the Defendants' appeal was pending, the Plaintiffs filed a second motion to amend, seeking to add three additional named Plaintiffs: Carlton Turner, Larry Jones, and Brooks ("Additional Named Plaintiffs"). They also filed a motion for leave to supplement their memorandum in support of their motion for class certification in order to incorporate information about the Additional Named Plaintiffs. At the same time, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss Tellis, a named Plaintiff who had been moved out of extended lockdown at David Wade Correctional Center ("DWCC") and requested to withdraw from the litigation. Because the Court has dismissed Tellis, the Plaintiffs in the matter are currently Bruce Charles and the Advocacy Center. The Plaintiffs filed the second motion to amend when the deadline for class discovery was rapidly approaching. Faced with numerous unresolved discovery disputes, the parties agreed that class discovery and merits discovery could proceed in tandem and that class certification would be addressed alongside dispositive motions. The Court accordingly upset the original deadlines related to class certification. It then issued a new scheduling order setting Jan. 15, 2020 for the close of fact discovery and Oct. 1, 2020 for the Plaintiffs' supplemental briefing in support of class certification. The Court has subsequently further extended the scheduling deadlines in the matter, making the Plaintiffs' supplemental briefing in support of class due Dec. 1, 2020. The motion for leave to amend originally sought to add another named Plaintiff, Damonte Henry, who has since withdrawn from the litigation. The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to amend their proposed amended complaint and the supplemental memorandum in support of class certification to remove the allegations and arguments related to Henry. The Plaintiffs have complied with the Order. Further, prior to the Court ruling on the instant motions, the Plaintiffs appealed a discovery order issued by the Magistrate Judge. Throughout the course of briefing the appeal, the Plaintiffs represented that Turner and Brooks were no longer housed on the extended lockdown unit at DWCC. It prompted the Court to order additional briefing on whether the claims of inmates no longer housed in extended lockdown at DWCC are moot, therefore preventing them from being properly named as class representatives in the action and making the instant motion to amend futile. The issue has now been fully briefed. Turning first to the Plaintiffs' explanation for the timing of their motion to amend, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs could have made their motion as early as January 2019. Judge Foote concludes that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements for a grant of leave to amend their complaint to add the Additional Named Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have adequately explained their delay in seeking to amend their complaint to add the Additional Named Plaintiffs. She also finds that the amendment is important to the orderly progress of the litigation. The relative importance of the amendment at issue is a question of procedural rather than substantive law, and it is in that sense that the proposed amendment has no effect on the merits of the case. While she acknowledges that adding named Plaintiffs will somewhat increase the Defendants' burden when arguing against class certification, the Judge finds the prejudice to be relatively minor when considered in light of the overall scope of the litigation. Finally, with the supplemental class briefing not set to resume until December 2020, there is ample time to allow the parties additional time to complete depositions of the Additional Named Plaintiffs upon request. The Defendants argue that Brooks lacks standing to proceed in the matter because he was not housed at DWCC at the time the original complaint was filed; the Plaintiffs contest this conclusion. The Judge holds that there appears to be no dispute that Brooks was held in extended lockdown on the date that the Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. She concludes that Brooks had standing at the time the second amended complaint was filed and so the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over his claim, at least while Brooks was housed at DWCC. The Judge must next determine if Charles and the Additional Named Plaintiffs, including Brooks, retain standing to serve as named Plaintiffs in the matter given that they are no longer incarcerated in the extended lockdown units at DWCC. First, under general mootness rules, the Judge finds that Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed as moot. Her conclusion is also applicable in the class action context if a named plaintiff's claim becomes moot before the class is certified, as is the instant case. There are several additional possible mootness exceptions applicable to class actions, however. Second, the extended class certification process in the case, the impossibility of predicting which potential Plaintiffs will remain at DWCC throughout the duration of the class certification process, and the existence of a constant group of inmates subject to the allegedly unconstitutional conditions lead the Judge to conclude that the Plaintiffs' claims are inherently transitory. Because the Plaintiffs' claims are inherently transitory, the relation back doctrine applies, and Charles and the Additional Named Plaintiffs' claims are not moot because they relate back to when their complaint was filed. Third, the Judge holds that the policy concerns leading to the exception to the mootness doctrine are also of legitimate concern in the context of the litigation where the Defendants control where the Additional Named Plaintiffs reside. Theoretically, the Defendants could transfer any inmate seeking to act as a class representative out of DWCC and into a different facility, thus preventing any Plaintiff from presenting claims that avoided mootness long enough for a class to be certified. This is analogous to a wealthy Defendant continually satisfying the monetary claims of the individual Plaintiffs. The Judge therefore concludes that even if Charles's and the Additional Named Plaintiffs' claims did not qualify for the inherently transitory exception, the "picking off" exception applies, and their claims are saved from mootness because they relate back to the filing of their respective complaints. For the reasons given, Judge Foote granted the motion to amend the complaint. By granting leave to amend, new representatives for the proposed class has been added. Hence, it is also appropriate for the Court to grant the Plaintiffs' associated motion to supplement their memorandum in support of the motion to certify a class. Carlton Turner, Larry Jones, and Ronald Brooks are added as representative Plaintiffs in the matter. The Clerk of Court is instructed to file Document 201-1 into the record as the Second Amended Complaint and Document 201-2 into the record as the Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Memorandum Ruling is available at https://is.gd/ObwU4M from Leagle.com. Anthony Tellis, on behalf of themselves and all other smimilarly situated prisoners at David Wade Correctional Center & Bruce Charles, on behalf of themselves and all other smimilarly situated prisoners at David Wade Correctional Center, Plaintiffs, represented by Jonathan Cameron Trunnell -- advocacycenter@advocacyla.org -- Advocacy Center, Bruce W. Hamilton, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of LA, Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of LA, Melanie Ann Bray -- mbray@advocacyla.org -- Advocacy Center of LA, Ronald Kenneth Lospennato, Advocacy Center & Sarah H. Voigt, Advocacy Center. Advocacy Center of Louisiana, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Cameron Trunnell, Advocacy Center, Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of LA, Melanie Ann Bray, Advocacy Center of LA, Ronald Kenneth Lospennato, Advocacy Center & Sarah H. Voigt, Advocacy Center. James M LeBlanc, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Jerry Goodwin, Warden of David Wade Correctional Center, Lonnie Nail, Col, Deborah Dauzat, Assistant Warden & Johnie Adkins, Defendants, represented by Margaret Annette C. Collier, LA Dept of Justice, Connell L. Archey -- connell@kswb.com -- Kantrow Spaht et al, George Prentiss Holmes -- george@kswb.com -- Kantrow Spaht et al, Keith Joseph Fernandez -- keith@kswb.com -- Kantrow Spaht et al & Randal J. Robert, Kantrow Spaht et al. Gregory Seal, Dr & Aerial Robinson, Defendants, represented by Margaret Annette C. Collier, LA Dept of Justice, Connell L. Archey, Kantrow Spaht et al, George Prentiss Holmes, Kantrow Spaht et al & Randal J. Robert, Kantrow Spaht et al. Steve Hayden, Defendant, represented by George Prentiss Holmes, Kantrow Spaht et al & Randal J. Robert, Kantrow Spaht et al. LA Dept of Public Safety & Corrections, Defendant, represented by Margaret Annette C. Collier, LA Dept of Justice, Connell L. Archey, Kantrow Spaht et al, George Prentiss Holmes, Kantrow Spaht et al, Jonathan Ray Vining, LA Dept of Public Safety & Corrections, KeithJoseph Fernandez, Kantrow Spaht et al & Randal J. Robert, Kantrow Spaht et al. M RAVIKOFF ASSOCIATES: Santiago Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Santiago, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals v. M. RAVIKOFF ASSOCIATES, INC. and MARVIN RAVIKOFF Case No. 7:20-cv-04473 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2020), alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages at the overtime wage rate, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked between 45 and 50 hours a week and was not compensated at the full overtime rate and, instead, was compensated at the straight-time rate for all hours worked. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated business with a policy of not paying the Plaintiff ages for hours over 40 hours in a week at the overtime wage rate in violation the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Westchester County, New York, who worked for the Defendants. M. RAVIKOFF ASSOCIATES, INC., is a domestic business corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq. Imran Ansari, Esq. AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C. 546 5th Avenue New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 486-0011 Email: ls@aidalalaw.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Hotel Policy Violates ADA, Migyanko Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD MIGYANKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00884-MJH (W.D. Penn., June 16, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in illegal discrimination towards people with disabilities by failing to provide hotel guest rooms with accessible sleeping surfaces. The Defendant's hotel practices and policies denied individuals with disabilities, including the Plaintiff, full and equal access to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations that the Defendant offers to the public. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction for the Defendant to offer the required number of hotel rooms with accessible sleeping surfaces pursuant to ADA's room dispersal requirements and to change its policies and practices to accommodate disabled people. Marriott International, Inc. is a hotel operator with principal place of business located at 10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh PA, 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com kiverson@carlsonlynch.com MCCARTHY BURGESS: Enden Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shlomo Enden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-02609 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. is under Collections Agencies. The Company provides commercial and consumer debt collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (347) 668-9326 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com MDL 2627: 4th Cir. Upholds $36M Deal in Chinese Flooring Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (i) affirmed the district court's Settlement Approval Order but (ii) vacated the district court's Attorney's Fees Order in the LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED FLOORING PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Lumber Liquidators Inc. is one of the largest specialty retailers of hardwood flooring and laminates in the United States. In March 2015, purchasers of the laminate flooring began filing class-action lawsuits against Lumber Liquidators in federal courts across the country. The Plaintiffs in those lawsuits alleged that the company had falsely represented to consumers that the flooring complied with the California Air Resource Board's ("CARB") formaldehyde emission limits, which are some of the strictest in the country. According to those Plaintiffs, Lumber Liquidators uses formaldehyde to make its laminate flooring, and -- as a result of excess levels of the chemical therein -- the flooring releases dangerous amounts of formaldehyde gas into the air. Those Plaintiffs further alleged that short-term exposure to formaldehyde causes eye, nose, throat, and skin irritation, plus coughing, headaches, and nausea, and that long-term exposure to formaldehyde increases the risk of developing cancer. Diana Cantu-Guerrero and Brice Johnston ("Objectors") pursued consolidated appeals from the district court's Oct. 9, 2018 order approving a class-action settlement, and Nov. 15, 2018 order awarding attorney's fees to the lawyers for the class members. The Settlement Approval Order resolves two Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") proceedings related to Lumber Liquidators Inc.'s sale of allegedly dangerous and defective laminate flooring to more than 760,000 customers from 2009 to 2015. The settlement required Lumber Liquidators to pay $22 million in cash and provide store vouchers with a face value of $14 million. Pursuant to the Attorney's Fees Order, the Class Counsel received about $10 million of the $22 million in cash. The Fourth Circuit's analysis of the consolidated appeals proceeds in three steps. First, the Fourth Circuit resolves the Objectors' arguments against the Settlement Approval Order, which the Fourth Circuit is satisfied lack merit. Second, the Fourth Circuit assesses the Objectors' challenges to the Attorney's Fees Order. Because the "coupon" settlement provisions of CAFA apply to the Lumber Liquidators vouchers, and the district court erred in ruling otherwise, the Fourth Circuit is constrained to vacate the Attorney's Fees Order. Consequently, in the third step of the analysis, the Fourth Circuit decides whether the Settlement Approval Order survives the Court's vacatur of the Attorney's Fees Order. And the Fourth Circuit is convinced that it does. The Fourth Circuit concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement and will affirm the Settlement Approval Order. The Fourth Circuit is obliged, however, to vacate the Attorney's Fees Order because the court erred by not applying to the store vouchers the "coupon" settlement provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The Fourth Circuit will remand for the district court to apply -- in the first instance -- those CAFA provisions in recalculating the attorney's fees award. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Settlement Approval Order; vacated the Attorney's Fees Order; and remanded for such other and further proceedings as may be appropriate. A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's March 10, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/pGMtzL from Leagle.com. The cases are IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED FLOORING PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJ). IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED FLOORING DURABILITY MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. (1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ). DIANA CANTU-GUERRERO, Party-in-Interest-Appellant, v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and LAURA WASHINGTON, LILA WASHINGTON, MARIA RONQUILLO, ROMUALDO RONQUILLO, JOSEPH MICHAEL BALERO, RYAN BRANDT, KRISTIN BRANDT, DEVIN CLOUDEN, SARA CLOUDEN, KEVIN PARNELLA, JULIE PARNELLA, SHAWN BURKE, and TANYA BURKE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Formaldehyde MDL Plaintiffs-Appellees, and ERIN FLOREZ, JIM MOYLEN, KELLY RYAN, KAREN HOTALING, and LOGAN PEREL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Durability MDL Plaintiffs-Appellees. IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED FLOORING PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJ). IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED FLOORING DURABILITY MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION (1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ). BRICE M. JOHNSTON, Party-In-Interest-Appellant, v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and LAURA WASHINGTON, LILA WASHINGTON, MARIA RONQUILLO, ROMUALDO RONQUILLO, JOSEPH MICHAEL BALERO, RYAN BRANDT, KRISTIN BRANDT, DEVIN CLOUDEN, SARA CLOUDEN, KEVIN PARNELLA, JULIE PARNELLA, SHAWN BURKE, and TANYA BURKE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Formaldehyde MDL Plaintiffs-Appellees, and ERIN FLOREZ, JIM MOYLEN, KELLY RYAN, KAREN HOTALING, and LOGAN PEREL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Durability MDL Plaintiffs-Appellees. IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED FLOORING PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (1:15-MD-02627-AJT-TRJ). IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE-MANUFACTURED FLOORING DURABILITY MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION (1:16-m-02743-AJT-TRJ). DIANA CANTU-GUERRERO, Party-In-Interest-Appellant, v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and LAURA WASHINGTON, LILA WASHINGTON, MARIA RONQUILLO, ROMUALDO RONQUILLO, JOSEPH MICHAEL BALERO, RYAN BRANDT, KRISTIN BRANDT, DEVIN CLOUDEN, SARA CLOUDEN, KEVIN PARNELLA, JULIE PARNELLA, SHAWN BURKE, and TANYA BURKE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Formaldehyde MDL Plaintiffs-Appellees, and ERIN FLOREZ, JIM MOYLEN, KELLY RYAN, KAREN HOTALING, and LOGAN PEREL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Durability MDL Plaintiffs-Appellees, Case Nos. 18-2351, 18-2490, 19-1231 (4th Cir.). ARGUED: Robert William Clore -- robertclorerclore@bandaslawfirm.com -- BANDAS LAW FIRM, PC, Corpus Christi, Texas; N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., N. ALBERT BACHARACH, JR. PA, Gainesville, Florida, for Appellants. Steven J. Toll -- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Christopher A. Bandas -- cbandas@bandaslawfirm.com -- BANDAS LAW FIRM, PC, Corpus Christi, Texas, for Appellant Diana Cantu-Guerrero. Diane P. Flannery -- dflannery@mcguirewoods.com -- Matthew Allen Fitzgerald -- mfitzgerald@mcguirewoods.com -- Andrew F. Gann, Jr. -- agann@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Patrick M. Wallace , WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Douglas J. McNamara -- dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Niall McCarthy, Burlingame, California, Alexander E. Barnett, COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP, New York, New York; Steve W. Berman, Robert F. Lopez, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Seattle, Washington; Alexander Robertson, IV , Mark Uyeno, ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP, Westlake Village, California, for Appellees. MDL 2785: Mylan Can File Notice Under Seal in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation. (This Document Applies to Consumer Class Cases), MDL No. 2785 (D. Kan.), Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (i) denied Mylan's request to seal a portion of the Court's Memorandum and Order ruling the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, as described in the Notice of the Parties' Views on Proposed Sealing Requests for ECF Nos. 2017 and 2018; and (ii) granted Mylan's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal the Notice of the Parties' Views on Proposed Sealing Requests for ECF Nos. 2017 and 2018. The Court previously placed on the CM/ECF docket as sealed orders the Memorandum and Order, ruling the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and the Memorandum and Order, ruling motions filed by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants seeking to exclude certain expert testimony offered either to support or oppose the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Court also notified the parties that it intended to place both Memoranda and Orders in their entirety, unsealed, on the public CM/ECF docket unless the parties identified portions of them that warranted limited access. On March 6, 2020, the parties filed jointly a Notice of Parties' Views on Proposed Sealing Requests for ECF Nos. 2017 and 2018. In that Notice, the parties advise that they don't ask the court to restrict access to any portion of the Memorandum and Order ruling the motions to exclude experts. In light of that agreement, Judge Crabtree will direct the Clerk of the Court to unseal the document, placing the entire Memorandum and Order on the public CM/ECF docket. With respect to the Memorandum and Order ruling the class certification motion, Mylan asks the Court to restrict access to just one portion of that Order. Pfizer makes no separate request to restrict access to any portion of the Memorandum and Order, but it agrees with Mylan's request to seal the particular portion of the Memorandum and Order that Mylan asks the court to seal. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to reject Mylan's request, and they ask the Court to file the Memorandum and Order ruling the class certification motion on the public CM/ECF docket in its entirety. Judge Crabtree disagrees. The information that Mylan seeks to restrict from public access is almost 10 years old. Mylan asserts that the documents' age is immaterial because they discuss Mylan's internal strategy for dealing with competition and for considering how to package its product—topics that remain relevant and sensitive today. But, the two citations at issue don't discuss business strategy specifically. Also, they don't include sensitive data. Instead, the information cited discusses projections Mylan made based on its decision to eliminate sales of single doses of the EpiPen. It's difficult to imagine how business projections that old could qualify for sealing. Also, Judge Crabtree finds that the information doesn't qualify for sealing because it is important to the analysis when deciding the class certification motion. Consequently, the public's interest in access to that information outweighs the confidentiality concerns. The Court has discretion when deciding whether privacy interests "heavily outweigh" the general right of public access to judicial records. The Court exercises that discretion, and concludes that Mylan has not shouldered its burden to establish that countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests in access to the material Mylan asks the court to keep under seal. He thus denies Mylan's request to seal a portion of the Memorandum and Order ruling the class certification motion. In a separate Order, the Court will order the Clerk of the Court to unseal in their entirety both the Memorandum and Order ruling the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and the Memorandum and Order ruling motions to exclude experts. Accordingly, Judge Crabtree denied Mylan's request to seal a portion of the court's Memorandum and Order ruling the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, as described in the "Notice of the Parties' Views on Proposed Sealing Requests for ECF Nos. 2017 and 2018." The Judge granted Mylan's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal the Notice of the Parties' Views on Proposed Sealing Requests for ECF Nos. 2017 and 2018. Mylan is granted leave to file the Notice under seal. The counsel for Mylan is directed to file the Notice on the CM/ECF docket with an event from the Sealed Documents category. Access to the sealed documents is governed by the Court's March 1, 2018 Order Denying Sealed Access. By separate docket entry, Judge Crabtree will order the Clerk of the Court to unseal, and make available to the public on the CM/ECF docket, Doc. 2017 and Doc. 2018. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 10, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/g38AWc from Leagle.com. All Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, represented by Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Keller Rohrback, LLC, Paul J. Geller -- Pgeller@kellerrohrback.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan C. Hudson -- rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Warren T. Burns -- wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest, LLP. Consumer Class Cases Plaintiffs, (For Filings as to All Consumer Class Cases Plaintiffs), Plaintiffs, represented by Alison Elizabeth Chase -- achase@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Arthur L. Shingler, III -- ashingler@rgrd.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Eric Fierro -- efierro@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Joseph C. Bourne -- jbourne@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLC, Mahde Youssef Abdallah -- mya@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm, PC, Rex A. Sharp , Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan C. Hudson , Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLC, Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm, PC, pro hac vice, Stuart A. Davidson -- sdavidson@kellerrohrback.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Tanya Korkhov --tkorkhov@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP & William L. Kalas -- WK@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm, PC. Mylan N.V., Defendant, represented by Adam K. Levin -- adam.levin@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin Frederick Holt -- benjamin.holt@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Brian C. Fries -- bfries@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage LLP, Brian R. Richichi -- brian.richichi@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Carolyn Anne DeLone -- carrie.delone@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad E. Blomberg -- cblombe@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage, LLP, Christopher D. Edelman , Hogan Lovells US LLP, Daniel Thomas Graham -- dgraham@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill, PLC, pro hac vice, David M. Foster -- david.foster@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice, James Moloney -- jmaloney@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage LLP, Jon Myer Talotta -- jon.talotta@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Justin Bernick ,Kathryn M. Ali , Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice, Sue Lin -- tony.lin@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Timothy Robert Herman -- therman@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill, PLC, pro hac vice & Yuri Fuchs -- yuri.fuchs@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US, LLP. MEDAC INC: Misclassifies Staff, Thomasson Claims ------------------------------------------------ PEGGY THOMASSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MEDAC, INC., BIJON MEMAR, individually and MIRAMED GLOBAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02287-JFA (D.S.C., June 17, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a data entry specialist from October 2006 to May 5, 2019. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other members of Plaintiff class consistently worked over 40 hours a week as required by Defendants to complete 500 Cases per week. However, Defendants failed to pay them at the rate of one and one-half times their normal rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Moreover, because Defendants classified their staff as independent contractor, they were denied of overtime pay and other employee benefits. Bijon Memar is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Medac. Medac, Inc. provides billing services to anesthesiology practices throughout the U.S. Miramed Global Services, Inc. provides process outsourcing solutions to healthcare organizations nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nekki Shutt, Esq. Janet Rhodes, Esq. Sarah J.M. Cox, Esq. BURNETTE SHUTT & MCDANIEL, PA PO Box 1929 Columbia, SC 29202 Tel: (803) 904-7930 Fax: (803) 904-7910 Emails: NShutt@BurnetteShutt.Law JRhodes@BurnetteShutt.Law SCox@BurnetteShutt.Law MICHAEL KORS: Taylor Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MICHAEL KORS, INC.; MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC.; MICHAEL KORS STORES (CALIFORNIA), INC.; MICHAEL KORS RETAIL, INC.; ADECCO USA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV10276 (Filed March 16, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 3, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-04931 to the proceeding. The complaint assert claims for the Defendants' failure to pay wages for all time worked at minimum wage in violation of California Labor Code. Adecco provides recruiting and workforce solutions. Michael Kors designs and sells apparel, accessories, and footwear.[BN] The Defendant Adecco USA, Inc. is represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. Talya Z. Friedman, Esq. Eric J. Gitig, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com Talya.Friedman@jacksonlewis.com Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com MIDLAND COUNTY, MI: Faces Woods Suit Over Edenville Dam Failure --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT WOODS and HOLLY JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND COUNTY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11351-TGB-PTM (E.D. Mich., May 27, 2020), demands injunctive relief to return the Plaintiffs and the Class to the status quo, as the Court may deem equitable under the circumstances, including constructing, reconstructing, and/or repairing the Edenville Dam and the other dams impounding the Four Lakes to meet federal standards. On the evening of May 19, 2020, the Edenville Dam catastrophically failed, causing tens of billions of gallons of water from manmade Wixom Lake to invade downstream communities. The Plaintiffs contend that the failure of the Edenville Dam was long ago forewarned, clearly so by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who revoked Boyce Hydro's permit expressly because the egregiously deficient condition of the dam and its spillways posed an ongoing and unacceptable risk to the life and property of downstream communities. The likelihood, and devastating consequences, of the Edenville Dam failure, was well known by all Defendants and well documented. However, the troubling failure of the Edenville dam was also the result of extraordinary neglect and indifference by Midland and Gladwin Counties, and the State Defendants, who intentionally intervened following the revocation of Boyce Hydro's FERC license to raise the water levels on Wixom Lake to dangerous levels, despite knowledge of the grossly inadequate and deficient condition of the Dam, the Plaintiff further alleges. The Defendants include GLADWIN COUNTY, FOUR LAKES TASK FORCE, a non-profit corporation acting as agent and delegated authority of the Counties, FOUR LAKES OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., a Michigan for-profit corporation, BOYCE HYDRO, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, BOYCE HYDRO POWER, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, BOYCE MICHIGAN, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, EDENVILLE HYDRO PROPERTY, LLC, a domestic limited liability company, LEE W. MUELLER, an individual citizen of Nevada, DANA NESSEL, in her official capacity as Attorney General and her individual capacity, AG DOES 1–10, in their individual capacities, THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES & ENERGY, in its official capacity, EGLE DOES 11–20, in their individual capacities, THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, in its official capacity, and MDNR DOES 21–30. The Plaintiffs are citizens of Midland, Michigan. Edenville dam was privately owned and operated by Boyce Hydro Power, a company based in Edenville, which also owned three other hydroelectric facilities. Defendants Midland County and Gladwin County are municipal corporations organized under the laws of the State of Michigan. FLTF is a non-profit corporation formed in 2018 by the manmade-lake communities along the Tittabawassee River.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Z. Robb, Esq. Steven D. Liddle, Esq. David R. Dubin, Esq. LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 E-mail: SLiddle@LDClassAction.com DDubin@LDClassAction.com MRobb@LDClassAction.com MINNESOTA: Class Action Filed Over Harassment of Journalists ------------------------------------------------------------ Jack Greiner, writing for Cincinnati.com, reports that an unfortunate consequence of the recent protests arising from the killing of George Floyd has been increased instances of harassment of journalists across the country. Organizations that track these things have reported over 100 instances of reporters being arrested, detained or assaulted while trying to do their jobs. In most cases, chiefs or mayors quickly apologize for the misconduct of rank and file officers. But it doesn't seem to stop. A class action suit in Minnesota recently filed on behalf of a freelance reporter, however, may ultimately bring an end to this type of conduct. According to the complaint, Jared Goyette is a freelance journalist who was working on assignment as a contract journalist with a national publication covering the protests and unrest in Minneapolis. At approximately 5:00 p.m. on May 27, 2020, Goyette was observing and documenting the demonstrations near the Minneapolis Police Department's Third Precinct. MPD officers protecting the Third Precinct were firing ballistic rounds, marker rounds, and tear gas intermittently and without warning or orders for dispersal. Goyette was hit in the face with less than lethal ammunition. Goyette's experience is one of many documented in the complaint. The complaint details arrests of 6 journalists, including the on camera arrest of CNN reporter Oscar Jimenez. The video captured by that crew is stunning for the utter lack of grounds for the arrest. The complaint also details use of force incidents against identified members of the press. One involved Los Angeles Times reporter Molly Hennessy-Fiske and photographer Carolyn Cole. According to the complaint, Minnesota State Patrol troopers backed them against a wall and fired tear gas and less-lethal projectiles at them. The two were wearing their press credentials, and Cole wore a flak jacket labeled "Press." Hennessy-Fiske shouted "Press" at the officers and waved her notebook at them before they fired. They asked the officers where to go but received no answer. When they tried to flee, the officers chased them and fired more projectiles at them. The complaint is filed on behalf of "[a]ll members of the news media, . . . who intend to engage in newsgathering or reporting activities in Minnesota related to the protest activities that followed the death of George Floyd and the law enforcement response to those protests." The defendants in the case include the City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis Chief of Police Medaria Arradondol, Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington, and Minnesota State Patrol Colonel Matthew Langer. The complaint seeks a declaration that defendants' conduct violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, a permanent injunction barring the defendants from engaging in unconstitutional conduct targeting journalists, and money damages compensating the injured journalists for their injuries. In any class action, the parties first litigate over whether the case may proceed as a class action. One requirement for proceeding as a class action (as opposed to a number of individual cases) is that there is "commonality" among the plaintiffs. This means that the claims are sufficiently similar that the case can proceed in group form. In certain product liability cases, this is not such a hard standard – if 100,000 people buy a defective product, the claims are pretty much the same. Here, it may not be so clear. While in the big picture the claims are along the same lines -- police mistreating reporters -- the defendants will likely argue that each case is unique. What warning did the police provide? Was the journalist impeding police activity? Was the journalist sufficiently identified? Was the conduct directed at the journalist, or was it inadvertent? These questions will have to be resolved before the court can certify the class. The case is in its earliest phase, and many things can happen before it's resolved. But the mere filing has value. It puts a spotlight on some inexcusable misconduct and it sends a message that journalists will fight for their rights. Let's hope police departments across the country are paying attention. [GN] MINTED INC: Faces Atkinson et al. Suit over Data Security Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA ATKINSON; and KATIE RENVALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MINTED, INC., Defendant, Case 3:20-cv-03869 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2020) alleges that the Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to protect the Plaintiff and the Class' personally identifiable information. According to the complaint, on May 6, 2020, a computer hacking group using the pseudonym Shiny Hunters burst onto the "dark web" scene when it attempted to sell more than 73.2 million records containing personally identifiable information from the user databases of 11 different companies, including Minted. Minted is an online marketplace for "crowd sourced" home goods, art, and stationery, allowing independent artists to submit art that is voted on by the Minted community. The winning submissions are then sold as home decor and stationery to consumers via Minted's online platform. To purchase goods and services on Defendant's website, customers create and populate user profiles with personally identifiable information ("PII") such as first and last name, email address, password, home address, telephone number, and payment card information. Minted customers trust that their PII will be maintained in a secure manner and kept from unauthorized disclosure to third parties as outlined in Minted's Privacy Policy. According to its notice to affected customers, on May 15, 2020 Minted "became aware of a report that mentioned Minted as one of ten companies impacted by a potential cybersecurity incident". Minted was the subject of a hack that resulted in the attempted sale of 5 million of its customer records on the dark web, and it did not even know until learning about it in a public report. Nearly two weeks later, and more than three weeks after the Data Breach occurred, Minted notified affected customers that their PII had been disclosed to unauthorized and malicious third parties. Minted, LLC provides online stationery products. The Company offers photo calendars, artworks, personal stationeries, christmas, holiday, wedding, and birthday cards. Minted serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel J. Mogin, Esq. Jennifer M. Oliver, Esq. Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq. MOGINRUBIN LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 687-6611 Facsimile: (619) 687-6610 E-mail: dmogin@moginrubin.com joliver@moginrubin.com tlacomb@moginrubin.com - and - Alex Schack, Esq. SCHACK LAW GROUP 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 485-6535 Facsimile: (858) 485-0608 E-mail: alexschack@schacklawgroup.com MINTED INC: Sued Over Data Breach Under California Law ------------------------------------------------------ Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the popular online stationary and craft marketplace Minted Inc. has been sued in a class action under California's new consumer privacy law, which allows for thousand-dollar per violation penalties, for allegedly mismanaging customer's' personal information following a massive data breach revealed last month. According to the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California, hackers going by the name Shiny Hunters stole 73.2 million records containing personally identifying information from 11 companies, Minted among them. On May 6, 2020, Shiny Hunters attempted to sell the data on the dark web. Minted was allegedly unaware of the breach until notified by a public report on May 15. It wasn't until May 28 that Minted notified customers via email, according to the complaint. Would-be class plaintiffs Melissa Atkinson and Katie Renvall allege that Minted failed to invest in appropriate data security systems, notwithstanding reporting around $150 million in revenue in 2019. Minted told customers that the data leaked included unredacted and unencrypted names, logon email addresses, and hashed passwords. According to the complaint, it told customers no payment or credit card information was stolen but hasn't explained how it reached that conclusion, and they say the data could be used to figure out how to access other sensitive accounts. The lawsuit makes claims under both federal and California state law, including the California Consumer Privacy Act enacted in January. The CCPA applies to businesses with gross annual revenues in excess of $25 million, businesses sharing the data of more than 50,000 customers, or businesses that derive 50% or more of their revenues from the sale of protected personal data, which for purposes of the law is defined broadly. It requires companies to disclose their data collection and sharing practices and to provide consumers with the right to delete their personal information. It also requires businesses to give consumers the opportunity to opt-out of the sale of their data and prohibits the sale of personal information for consumers under the age of 16 altogether. Businesses that run afoul of the law face penalties of $2,500 for each unintentional violation or $7,500 for each intentional violation after notice and a 30-day opportunity to cure have been provided when enforced by the state attorney general's office. Penalties sought under a private right of action range from $100 to $750 per violation. Causes of Action: For the California class, the California Consumer Privacy Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. For the nationwide class, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied contract. Relief: Compensatory and punitive damages; statutory or civil penalties. Potential Class Size: The lawsuit seeks certification of nationwide and California classes comprised of all individuals whose personally identifiable information was compromised in the breach. Attorneys: Moginrubin LLP and Schack Law Firm. The case is Atkinson v. Minted, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 3:20-cv-03869, 6/11/20. [GN] MJ-MC HOME: Seeks Review of Decision in Sanchez Labor Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant MJ-MC Home Health Care Agency, Inc., filed an appeal from the annexed Decision and Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 6, 2020, in the lawsuit styled KETEVAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by MJ-MC HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, INC., along with other entities affiliated or controlled by MJ-MC HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, INC. v. MJ-MC HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, INC. and/or any other related entities, Case No. 160461/2018, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The underlying facts, legal issues and causes of action in the two actions relate to claims for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, and improper wage notice violations. The putative classes in the two actions encompass the same group of home health aides working for MJ-MC Home Health Care Agency, Inc. While one named plaintiff is classified as an hourly employee and another as a 24-hour employee, this would only go to the quantum of damages, which is insufficient to defeat class certification. Finally, the defendant has not demonstrated that consolidation would prejudice a substantial right. Settle order on notice. The appellate case is captioned as KETEVAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by MJ-MC HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, INC., along with other entities affilated or controlled by MJ-MC HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, INC., MJ-MC HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, INC. and/or any other related entities, Case No. 2020-02562, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department.[BN] Plaintiffs KETEVAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by MJ-MC HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, INC., along with other entities affiliated or controlled by MJ-MC HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, INC., are represented by: LaDonna Lusher, Esq. Michele Moreno, Esq. Joel Goldenberg, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com mmoreno@vandallp.com jgoldenberg@vandallp.com Defendant-Appellant MJ-MC HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, INC., is represented by: Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. Samuel G. Dobre, Esq. MJ-MC HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY, INC. 600 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 253-2330 NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS: Remand Bid on Figuerola Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in the case captioned ROSSANA FIGUEROLA, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 19-7491 FMO (MAAx), (C.D. Cal.). In November 2018, Rossana Figuerola filed a Complaint in the Santa Barbara Superior Court against Nationwide Agribusiness and Hometown Insurance Services, Inc. The Complaint was amended on July 1, 2019, asserting claims related to an insurance dispute. In August 2019, Hometown was dismissed from the case as per the Plaintiff's request. Nationwide removed the action to the California District Court on August 29, 2019, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332, 1441(b). On review, the Court concludes that the instant action did not become removable until Hometown was actually dismissed from the case, which occurred on August 9, 2019. Thus, defendant's removal of the instant case was timely. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 27, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/uafttpk from Leagle.com Rossana Figuerola, Trustee of the Figuerola Family Trust Dated June, 2005, Plaintiff, represented by Richard I. Wideman -- riwlaw@gmail.com -- Richard I. Wideman Law Offices. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Marc S. Hines -- mhines@lawhhp.com -- Hines Hampton Pelanda LLP & Brian L. Pelanda, Hines Hampton Pelanda LLP, 30 Executive Park, Suite 210, Irvine, CA 92614. NAVIENT CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in DeWitt Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GLYNIS DEWITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-02509-HLT (D. Kan.), Judge Holly L. Teeter of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied the Plaintiff's motion to to certify a class. The Complaint provides that the Plaintiff borrowed $16,556.93 in 2001 in order to attend nursing school at the Johnson County Community College School of Nursing. The funds came in the form of two loans, disbursed by the United States Department of Education and assigned to Sallie Mae, Inc., for servicing. The loan agreements identified Navient Federal Loan Trust as the lender. After several years of periodic payments, Plaintiff owed approximately $3,600 on one loan and $2,700 on the other as of June 20, 2013. On that date, the Plaintiff set up an "Auto Debit" payment method, whereby monthly payments were to be automatically made on the nineteenth of every month. In July 2013, the Plaintiff decided to consolidate her student loan debt through a commercial lender, Commerce Bank. On July 19, 2013, Commerce Bank issued two pay-off checks to Sallie Mae to fully pay off the nursing school loans. The checks were cashed on July 24, 2013, and no further auto debits were made from the Plaintiff's bank account. Nevertheless, sometime thereafter, Plaintiff learned that her loans had been placed into default status, and sold to Defendant United Student Aid Funds, Inc. on Oct. 30, 2015. In correspondence from Defendant Navient Solutions, Inc., dated Nov. 17, 2016, the Plaintiff was notified that her loans had been declared delinquent as of Sept. 19, 2014. On Jan. 31, 2016, USA Funds notified the National Consumer Reporting Agencies that the Plaintiff's loans were in default. In February, August, and September 2016, she sent written notifications to Navient Solutions and USA Funds explaining that she disputed the debts because they had been paid in full in 2013. Despite her requests, she received no documents verifying the debt from these Defendants. In August 2016, Navient Solutions wrote to the Plaintiff, explaining that it had researched her claims. It had discovered that her pay-off checks had been cashed by Navient Department of Education; however, the loans, as of the date of the letter, had already been sold to USA Funds, described as a private company which is not affiliated with Navient Department of Education. As of Oct. 25, 2016, the Plaintiff's account had been placed with Defendant EOS CCA Debt Collection Co., which sent her a "First Demand Notice." The Plaintiff responded with notice to EOS that the debt had been paid in full. The alleged debt was then reported to the IRS so that her tax refunds could be garnished, with no notice provided to her. As a result of these threats, the Plaintiff felt she had no choice but to start making installment payments on the paid-off loans. In November 2016, the Plaintiff heard again from Navient Solutions, which wrote to reiterate that her pay-off checks had been cashed by Navient Department of Education, and that it appeared the funds were used to pay an "8/26/09 Parent PLUS loan for the Plaintiff's daughter] Chelsea R. Harvey." The Plaintiff, with another cashier's check from Commerce Bank issued the same day as the others, had also intended to pay off her daughter's loan. The check issued for that purpose was identified accordingly on its face and was also immediately cashed. The auto debit that the Plaintiff had set up for the Parents PLUS loan also stopped at this time. By April 2017, the Plaintiff had obtained counsel and sent Navient Solutions documentation to demonstrate the pay-off of her loans. Navient Solutions responded but failed to provide an explanation or documentation supporting its position. A second letter to Navient Solutions elicited a response, this time stating that Navient Solutions never received the cashier's checks for her student loans, and that the checks had instead been cashed by the U.S. Treasury. No further explanation has been provided by Defendants. Plaintiff continues to make payments under protest in order to avoid garnishment and a negative credit rating. The Plaintiff now seeks to bring an action on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). She seeks certification for three nationwide classes, each with a duplicate Kansas-based subclass, for student loan borrowers who have suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' improper, wrongful, unfair, or deceptive debt collection practices. The three classes comprise: (1) the Misallocated Payments Class; (2) the Improper Verification Class; and (3) the Loan Rehabilitation Class. In her complaint, the Plaintiff identifies several common questions of law and fact that she contends are shared by the classes. These include: whether the Defendants have a policy and practice of collecting on settled debts; whether they use unfair practices, including garnishment and false reporting, in those efforts; whether or not they have violated federal and Kansas statutes; whether the proposed class members have paid their loans in full; and whether the proposed class members have been damaged by the Defendans' unlawful conduct. To support her request for class certification, the Plaintiff asserts that the Navient entities service education loans for approximately 12 million borrowers. Further, she includes internet links to the United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Consumer Complaint Database, where anonymous borrowers have lodged over 5,000 complaints against Defendants, covering topics similar to those the Plaintiff complains of, such as "Received bad information about my loan," "Need information about your loan balance or loan terms," and "Disclosure verification of debt." The Plaintiff's complaint consists of nine counts; eight of these are brought individually and on behalf of the nationwide class, including: Count I against Navient and Navient Solutions for multiple violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"); Count II against USA Funds for multiple violations of the FDCPA; Count III against EOS for multiple violations of the FDCPA; Count IV against all the Defendants for violations of Kansas's Uniform Commercial Credit Code; Count V against all the Defendants for violation of Kansas' Consumer Protection Act; Count VI against all the Defendants for negligence; Count VII against all Defendants for breach of contract; and Count VIII against all the Defendants for unjust enrichment. Count IX is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff individually against all the Defendants for defamation, in connection with their reporting of her default to credit reporting agencies and the IRS. The Plaintiff seeks, for herself and the class, monetary damages as well as a declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated the law and an order directing them to cease and desist wrongful collections efforts, and to notify the credit reporting agencies and the IRS of their past errors. It is not clear from her motion to certify the class whether she intends to pursue injunctive relief. For purposes of analyzing the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Court must accept her version of events as true. Nonetheless, it is illustrative to review a summary of the Defendants' version of events in order to develop a picture of how an adjudication of claims brought by the Plaintiff and the proposed class would proceed. According to the Defendants, the Plaintiff's cashier's checks were sent to the wrong place -- a post office box that processed payments for loans owned by the U.S. Department of Education. Consequently, the Department of Education issued a refund to Plaintiff, along with instructions as to where the payments should be sent. Someone from the Department also called the Plaintiff to explain the situation. But, after the Plaintiff received the refund, she proceeded to make only a partial payment on the loans, retaining approximately $4,000 of the refunded amount. The partial payment satisfied her monthly payment obligations until September 2014, at which point additional payments became due. As no further payments were made, and the auto-debiting had previously been cancelled by the Plaintiff, the loans became delinquent and were purchased by the guarantor, USA Funds. EOS was engaged to collect the debt. According to the Defendants, the Plaintiff ignored the various mailings, emails and telephone calls informing her of the delinquency and subsequent default, and she made no attempt to bring the loans current. Judge Teeter holds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that questions of law or fact common to all the proposed class members predominate over questions affecting its individual members. Because failure to satisfy this prong of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) is fatal to the Plaintiff's motion to certify the class, the Judge proceeds directly to the analysis, rather than undertaking the threshold inquiry as to the classes' numerosity, commonality and typicality, and the class representative's adequacy. The factual allegations surrounding the Plaintiff's own experiences with the Defendants are illustrative of the individual inquiry that would be necessary in order to resolve the parties' dispute. In short, the Plaintiff claims she paid off her loans in full but continues to be harassed by Defendants, who wrongfully seek additional payments and refuse to provide her with any verification to support their demands. On their side, the Defendants claim that she sent her pay-off checks to the wrong place, then pocketed the refund they issued to her and ignored their communications concerning the status of the loans. To get to the bottom of this, a fact-finder would have to ascertain where Plaintiff sent the pay-off checks, whether or not she received a refund, what she did with the putative refund, and what is the accurate and current status of her loans' balances. In an effort to prove the suitability of her proposed classes, the Plaintiff provides internet hyperlinks to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's database, specifically the complaints involving Navient Solutions. To rigorously evaluate her proof, the Court clicked on the hyperlink and reviewed the first topic: "Issue—Dealing with my lender or servicer." Judge Teeter holds that although these accounts -- four counting the Plaintiff's -- demonstrate the hassle and stress involved with dealing with Navient Solutions, it is also obvious that the resolution of each episode hinges on an individualized determination of very disparate facts. That is, in the words of the Supreme Court, "members of a proposed class will need to present evidence that varies from member to member." In the first scenario, the problem was finally solved when the discrepancy in the loan account number was discovered. The second scenario will require an investigation about whether the writer, a federal employee, is eligible for a public service loan forgiveness program. In the third scenario, an unfortunate person got duped by a friend who absconded, leaving the writer holding the bag for the loan's repayment. With over 5,000 complaints logged on the database, there are no doubt some common issues. But the Judge will not sift through the hyperlinks to find them. She determines that the Plaintiff has failed to fulfill her burden of proving that questions of law or fact common to all proposed class members will predominate over questions affecting its individual members. Consequently, the Judge denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify the class. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 10, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/Xn9S9Z from Leagle.com. Glynis DeWitt, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Blake H. Butner -- bbutner@mwcattorneys.com -- Morrow Willnauer Church, LLC & Gary J. Willnauer -- gwillnauer@mwcattorneys.com -- Morrow Willnauer Church, LLC. Navient Corporation, Navient Solutions, Inc. & United Student Aid Funds, Inc., Defendants, represented by Christopher R. Ramos, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice, Justin M. Dean -- justin.dean@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC & Lisa M. Simonetti -- simonettil@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice. EOS CCA Debt Collection Co., Defendant, represented by Benjamin N. Hutnick -- bhutnick@bermanrabin.com -- Berman & Rabin, PA. NELNET DIVERSIFIED: Tenth Cir. Appeal Filed in Peterson FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jeff Peterson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Peterson v. Nelnet Diversified Solutions, Case No. 1:17-CV-01064-NYW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Denver. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on, Plaintiff Andrew Peterson initiated this action by filing a Complaint asserting a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for unpaid overtime wages on behalf of himself and all current and former Account Managers and Call Center Representatives. Mr. Peterson alleged that Nelnet violated the FLSA by failing to pay him and other call center representatives premium overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. In his original Complaint, Mr. Peterson asserted claims for: (1) violation of the FLSA on behalf of himself and the collective (2) violation of Colorado Minimum Wage Order on behalf of himself and a Rule 23 class of individuals (Second Cause of Action) and (3) violation of the Colorado Wage Act on behalf of himself and a Rule 23 class of individuals (Third Cause of Action). The appellate case is captioned as Peterson v. Nelnet Diversified Solutions, Case No. 20-1217, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Transcript order form and notice of appearance is due on June 25, 2020, for Jeff Peterson. Notice of appearance is due on June 25, 2020, for Nelnet Diversified Solutions, LLC.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEFF PETERSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, is represented by: Eleanor Emmons Frisch, Esq. Adam W. Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 E-mail: eleanor@apollo-law.com adam@apollo-law.com - and - Brian Gonzales, Esq. BRIAN D. GONZALES LAW OFFICES 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: Bgonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP 800 Third Avenue, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Gregg Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com Defendant-Appellee NELNET DIVERSIFIED SOLUTIONS, LLC is represented by: Matthew C. Arentsen, Esq. Richard Benenson, Esq. Julian R. Ellis, Jr., Esq. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK 410 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4437 Telephone: (303) 223-1100 E-mail: marentsen@bhfs.com rbenenson@bhfs.com jellis@bhfs.com - and - Charles F. Kaplan, Esq. PERRY & NEBLETT 2550 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 11 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 856-8408 E-mail: ckaplan@perrylawfirm.com - and - Daniel F. Kaplan, Esq. PERRY GUTHERY HAASE AND GESSFORD 233 South 13th Street, Suite 1400 Lincoln, NE 68508 Telephone: (402) 476-9200 E-mail: dkaplan@perrylawfirm.com - and - Anna-Liisa Mullis, Esq. Nicholas Robert Santucci, Esq. Martine Tariot Wells, Esq. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK 410 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4437 Telephone: (303) 223-1100 E-mail: amullis@bhfs.com nsantucci@bhfs.com mwells@bhfs.com NESTLE USA: Judge Tosses Class Action Over White Chocolate Label ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that on June 4, a California federal judge dismissed a putative class action complaint challenging Nestle USA, Inc.'s labels on its "Nestle Toll House's Premier White Morsels." Prescott, et al. v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-07471-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Plaintiffs alleged that Nestle's labeling and advertising misled consumers into believing that the product contained white chocolate. As stated in the complaint, plaintiffs argued that Nestle violated FDA labeling standards by attempting to pass its "Premier White Morsels" as white chocolate through use of the words "white" and "premier," even though the product did not contain any cocoa or cocoa derivatives. However, the product's label did not state that it contained white chocolate, or even use the word "chocolate." U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman noted that similar claims brought by the same plaintiffs were dismissed against Ghirardelli Chocolate Co. in April. In agreement with the Ghirardelli dismissal, Judge Freeman held that the word "white" alone does not lead reasonable customers to believe that the product is white chocolate. Likewise, she stated that the word "premier" was nonactionable puffery. Judge Freeman also denied plaintiffs' request for an injunction against Nestle, ruling that plaintiffs could not be harmed in the future given that they pled they would not have purchased the morsels had they known they were not white chocolate. Lastly, Judge Freeman denied Nestle's request to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend the complaint, and stated that they plan to file an amended complaint with a "large-scale, statistically significant" consumer survey that shows 90% of consumers are deceived by Nestle's white morsel marketing. [GN] NEW YORK TIMES: Moses Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Subscriptions ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARIBEL MOSES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, d/b/a The New York Times, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04658 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for conversion, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act in California. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an illegal automatic renewal scheme, wherein consumers who sign up for The New York Times through its website at https://www.nytimes.com or its mobile applications, the NYT Website and the NYT App, will be enrolled in a program that automatically renews their subscription plans from month-to-month or year-to-year and results in monthly or annual charges to their credit card, debit card, or third party payment account. The Defendant's practice violates the ARL requirements by: (i) failing to present the automatic renewal offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing agreement is fulfilled, in violation of Section 17602(a)(1); (ii) charging consumers' payment method without first obtaining their affirmative consent to the agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms, in violation of Section 17602(a)(2); and (iii) failing to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by consumers, in direct violation of Sections 17602(a)(3) and 17602(b). The New York Times Company, d/b/a The New York Times, is an international media company with its principal place of business at 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10018. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com fklorczyk@bursor.com NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Romankow Suit Over Tuition Fee Refunds ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID ROMANKOW and JACLYN ROMANKOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04616 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2020) is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who paid tuition for the Spring semester 2020 as well as associated fees and costs at New York University and who have not been refunded a prorated portion of those fees after Defendant closed its campuses to students and shifted to a limited online experience presented by Google or Zoom due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19"). According to the complaint, despite sending students home and closing its campuses, Defendant continues to charge for tuition, fees, and/or room and board Defendant does so despite students' complete inability to continue school as normal, occupy campus buildings and dormitories, or avail themselves of school programs and events. While some colleges and universities have promised appropriate and/or proportional refunds, Defendant excludes itself from such other institutions treating students fairly, equitably, and as required by the law. And for some students and families, Defendant does so based on outdated financial aid equations and collections, without taking into account disruptions to family income, a particular concern now where layoffs and furloughs are at record levels. As a result, Defendant's actions have financially damaged Plaintiffs and the Class Members. Plaintiffs bring this action because Plaintiffs and the Class Members did not receive the full-value of the services paid and did not receive the benefits of in-person instruction. They have also lost the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss, and are entitled to recover compensatory damages, trebling where permitted, and attorney's fees and costs. New York University is a private institute of higher education, with a principal place of business in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd. S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3283 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com - and - Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-0391 Facsimile: (973) 228-0303 E-mail: mrm@mazieslater.com NORCRAFT COS: Mariani Sues D&Os Over Sale to Fortune Brands ----------------------------------------------------------- ROGER MARIANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARK BULLER, MICHAEL MASELLI, CHRISTOPHER REILLY, HARVEY WAGNER, IRA ZECHER, and EDWARD KENNEDY, Defendants, Case No. 2020-0471- (Del. Ch., June 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated former stockholders of Norcraft Companies, Inc., alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiff and Class members as directors and/or officers of Norcraft by failing to act in the best interests of the company's public stockholders in connection with the all-cash sale of Norcraft to Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. According to the Court in its post-trial opinion, the merger price did not reflect the fair value of Norcraft as of the merger date based on significant flaws in the merger process that undermined the reliability of the merger price as an indicator of Norcraft's fair value which include no pre-signing market check, a single bidder focus, a go-shop process rendered ineffective by deal-protection measures, and a conflicted lead negotiator. The Board sat idly by and acquiesced to a sale process controlled by former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chairman of the Board Defendant Mark Buller despite the existence of obvious conflicts of interest. The Board's inaction resulted to its approval of the merger transaction at an unfair price to the detriment of the company's public stockholders, particularly their rights to have a fair share of Norcraft's future value. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. O'KELLY & ERNST, LLC 824 N. Market St., Suite 1001A Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 778-4000 E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly K. Moran, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 NY UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Repayment of Tuition, Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ New York University (NYU) has been sued in a class-action lawsuit demanding repayment for tuition, room and board and other costs amid its COVID-19-related campus closure, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman representing a student and graduate. If you are paying for college tuition, and/or room and board at any U.S. college or university closed due to COVID-19, find out more about the lawsuit and your rights. The lawsuit was filed June 9, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and accuses the university of breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion. The law firm representing the student has also brought similar lawsuits against Boston University, Brandeis University, Brown University, Duke University, Emory University, George Washington University, Hofstra University, University of Miami, Pepperdine University, Quinnipiac University, University of Southern California, Vanderbilt University and Washington University in St. Louis for failure to repay tuition-payers for their losses. "NYU is America's largest private university, and its handling of the COVID-19 outbreak necessitated closure of its world-class campus, barring students from access to NYU's many amenities, facilities, communities and in-person benefits," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney for students in the class action. "Unfortunately NYU students were left paying the same in tuition, room and board and other fees, despite receiving an experience that was far from what they paid for. We believe NYU owes its students more in light of this tremendous hardship." The student and alumni bringing the lawsuit, both residents of New York, were full-time students at NYU during the spring 2020 semester, during which NYU closed its campus and transitioned all courses to online instruction. The lawsuit highlights that in NYU's online courses during its response to COVID-19, students were "limited to rote emails and pre-scheduled in-and-out Zoom conferences, absent of all relationship connections from earlier in the semester." NYU students, the lawsuit says, paid the university for opportunities and services they did not receive, including on-campus education, facilities, services and activities. The complaint reads, "Despite sending students home and closing its campus(es), Defendant continues to charge for tuition and certain fees as if nothing has changed, continuing to reap the financial benefit of millions of dollars from students." The suit also says that for one of the two named plaintiffs in the case, half of her coursework in one of her spring 2020 classes was cancelled. "And another important course, which summarized her time at NYU in a creative project, was similarly and substantially watered down," the suit states. The lawsuit's other plaintiff, a student enrolled in NYU's drama program, was left unable to participate in acting projects for classmates that were involved in directing projects or design costumes for a show that another classmate was producing. NYU promotes itself to students as "a community of communities," explaining, "[f]rom residence halls to clubs and organizations, these clubs will enrich your experience," "help you form lifelong connections with diverse classmates from across the United States and the world," according to the lawsuit. As of August 2019, NYU reported an endowment valued at more than $4.3 billion, with total assets exceeding $23.1 billion. Full-time students in NYU's Tisch School of the Arts paid $27,964 in tuition for the spring 2020 semester and $1,312 in registration and services fees. Room and board expenses for the term approximated $9,342. Other Affected Universities Hagens Berman is investigating the rights of those who are currently paying for room and board, and/or tuition at all U.S. colleges and universities that have been forced to close due to the outbreak of COVID-19. This may include parents, guardians or college students who are paying for their own costs of college. Despite orders from colleges and universities sending home students and closing campuses, these institutions of higher learning continue to charge for tuition and room and board. Collectively, these institutions are continuing to receive millions from students despite their inability to continue school as normal, or occupy campus buildings and dorms. Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against colleges and universities for tuition, room and board and other costs incurred during the outbreak of COVID-19. 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] OAKLAND, CA: Sued for Excessive Force at Floyd Protests ------------------------------------------------------- Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a proposed class action claims that the City of Oakland allegedly used violent crowd control tactics against peaceful demonstrators during recent protests following the killing of George Floyd. The police "deployed constitutionally unlawful crowd control tactics including kettling," indiscriminately launching "tear gas and flashbangs into crowds and at individuals, and shooting projectiles at demonstrators," Anti Police-Terror Project, Community Ready Corps, and five named plaintiffs allege. Police knowingly placed demonstrators in physical danger "through indiscriminate use of excessive force," and "knowingly created a danger to public health by forcing demonstrators to break social distancing rules" in place due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the plaintiffs allege. The proposed class also alleges the police targeted journalists and others who were recording their conduct, and targeted medics who were seeking to assist injured people. The plaintiffs are seeking damages as well as an order barring the city from using tear gas, rubber bullets, flashbang grenades, and other non-lethal weapons. Similar suits have been filed against other cities, including Seattle and Minneapolis, and protesters who say they were violently dispersed from an event near the White House have sued President Donald Trump. Floyd died of asphyxiation on May 25, when Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer, kneeled on his neck while he lay handcuffed face-down on the ground for more than eight minutes, as Floyd said he was unable to breathe. Chauvin has been charged with homicide, and the three other officers present at the scene have been charged with aiding and abetting. Causes of Action: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and association, Fouther Amendment rights against excessive force and unlawful seizure. Relief: Declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Potential Class Size: The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of more than 1,000 people. Response: The city didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Attorneys: Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta represents the plaintiffs. The case is Anti Police-Terror Project v. City of Oakland, N.D. Cal., No. 20-cv-03866, 6/11/20. [GN] OAKLAND: Groups Sue over Violent Dispersal of Protesters -------------------------------------------------------- ANTI POLICE-TERROR PROJECT; COMMUNITY READY CORPS; AKIL RILEY; IAN McDONNELL; NICO NADA; AZIZE NGO; and JENNIFER LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF OAKLAND; CITY OF OAKLAND'S POLICE DEPARTMENT ("OPD") Police Chief, SUSAN E. MANHEIMER; OPD Sergeant PATRICK GONZALES; OPD Officer MAXWELL D'ORSO; and OPD Officer CASEY FOUGHT, Defendants, Case 3:20-cv-03866 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2020) seeks to restrain the Defendants from committing violent and unconstitutional conduct in dispersing protesters. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs participated in the protests on May 29 and June 1, 2020, following the graphic police murder of George Floyd, who was recorded on video reciting the all too familiar and tragic plea "I can't breathe" while a white police officer kneeled on his neck. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant City of Oakland's Police Department ("OPD") used violent crowd control tactics against these peaceful demonstrators. Over the course of several days, OPD deployed constitutionally unlawful crowd control tactics including kettling, indiscriminately launching of tear gas and flashbangs into crowds and at individuals, and shooting projectiles at demonstrators. These demonstrators included many young Black and Brown people. As a result of the police conduct, members and supporters of APTP and CRC were discouraged from participating in protests and from exercising their rights to free speech. Oakland is a city on the east side of San Francisco Bay, in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Walter Riley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WALTER RILEY 1407 Webster Street, Suite 206 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 451-1422 Facsimile: (510) 451-0406 E-mail: walterriley@rrrandw.com - and - Dan Siegel, Esq. Anne Butterfield Weills, Esq. Jane Brunner, Esq. Sonya Z. Mehta, Esq. Emilyrose Johns, Esq. Andrew Chan Kim, Esq. SIEGEL YEE BRUNNER & MEHTA 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 839-1200 Facsimile: (510) 444-6698 E-mail: danmsiegel@gmail.com; abweills@gmail.com; janebrunner@hotmail.com; sonyamehta@siegelyee.com; emilyrose@siegelyee.com; chankim@siegelyee.com - and - James Douglas Burch, Esq. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 558 Capp Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 285-5067 x.104 E-mail: james_burch@nlgsf.org OHIO NATIONAL: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Cook Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Greg Land, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal appeals court has affirmed an Ohio judge's dismissal of a putative class action against Ohio National Insurance over the company's decision to stop paying certain kinds of commissions on variable annuities. The June 9 opinion agreed that the named plaintiff, a representative for a broker-dealer who sold the annuities, was not a party to the contract between Ohio National and the brokerage firm, and thus had no standing to sue. The case is one of several in various stages of litigation against Ohio National and related entities over its decision to discontinue payment of trail commissions to brokers and agents who serviced its variable annuities from 2012 through 2018, when it stopped selling them and discontinued the payments. Thousands of brokers were affected by the decision to end the payments, which were offered to them in lieu of accepting lump-sum commissions when they sold the annuities. Complaints have been filed around the country asserting that Ohio National breached agreements under which the brokers were guaranteed to receive the commissions until the annuities were surrendered or annuitized -- which is when they are converted into fixed, regular payments by the purchaser. Three such suits were filed in Ohio's Southern District. U.S. District Senior Judge Susan Dlott dismissed two of them in October, and the plaintiffs appealed in both cases. The June 9 ruling comes in the case of Stephen Cook, a Texas-based securities representative employed by broker-dealer Triad Advisors. Triad had a contract with Ohio National under which the insurer would pay annuities to Triad, which in turn paid its representative under a separate agreement. After Ohio National stopped paying the commissions, Cook filed a class action against the insurer for breach of contract, arguing that he was a "third-party beneficiary" to its agreement with Triad. He also filed a claim for unjust enrichment. A magistrate judge's report and recommendation agreed that Cook was an "intended" third-party beneficiary but Dlott found otherwise, writing that the selling agreement was solely between Ohio National and Triad. She also found that there was no basis for the unjust enrichment claim. The appellate opinion affirming Dlott's dismissal was written by Senior Judge Gilbert Merritt with the concurrence of Judges Richard Suhrheinrich and Jeffrey Sutton. The selling agreement explicitly stated that the commissions were to be paid to Triad, Merritt wrote, and "provided that any compensation paid to the representatives such as plaintiff will be Triad's responsibility. "The requirement to have a separate contract cuts against any suggestion that the selling agreement was intended to directly benefit representatives like plaintiff," he said. Because the agreement "unambiguously directs Ohio National to pay commissions to Triad," the opinion said, Cook's claim for unjust enrichment is also without basis under Ohio law. The second case Dlott dismissed, Browning v. Ohio National Life Insurance, was scheduled for video arguments at the Sixth Circuit this week, but they have been canceled and the case will be decided solely on briefs, according to the appellate docket. The Ohio National defendants are represented by Marion Little Jr. -- little@litohio.com -- and Christopher Hogan -- hogan@litohio.com -- of Columbus' Zeiger, Tigges & Little. They did not respond to a request for comment on June 10. Cook is represented by B. Nathaniel Garrett, James Helmer Jr. and Robert Rice of Helmer, Martins, Rice & Popham in Cincinnati. In an email, Garrett said the ruling was unfortunate. "The fact remains that advisors earned commissions by selling Ohio National's variable annuities, and Ohio National decided to unilaterally stop paying those earned commissions," Garrett said. "At a time when many are struggling financially, this ruling forecloses court access and compounds the ongoing harm suffered by affected advisors." "Advisors were necessary to sell and service the annuities, but are now forced to sit on the sidelines while their entitlement to commissions for all of their hard work is litigated between Ohio National and broker-dealers," he said. Garrett said his firm is monitoring two related appeals and the third broker-dealer class action in Ohio's Southern District, Veritas Independent Partners LLC v. Ohio National Life Insurance, which remains pending. "Should the broker-dealers' class action be resolved in their favor, financial advisors should still be entitled to their promised compensation," Garrett said. A similar case in the Southern District of Texas has been stayed pending the outcome of the Veritas litigation. Meanwhile, Ohio National settled another case in Texas' Western District and one in Illinois; the insurer continues to fight a Massachusetts judge's order directing a trail commission case there to FINRA arbitration. [GN] ORACLE AMERICA: Class Certification Granted in Equal Pay Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Hemenway, in an article for JDSupra titled "California Superior Court Grants Class Certification in Equal Pay Case Littler", wrote that on April 30, 2020, Judge V. Raymond Swope of San Mateo Superior Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in Jewett et al. v. Oracle America, Inc. In doing so, the court certified a class of more than 4,100 female employees who work within three of Oracle America, Inc.'s 15 job functions: Information Technology, Product Development, and Support, in the state of California.1 Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint in June 2017 alleging violations of the California Equal Pay Act (EPA), Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200 (UCL), and later through amended complaints, Private Attorneys General Act, and related Labor Code violations. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant violated the California EPA and UCL when it paid female employees less than male employees in the same job function for performance of substantially similar work. Plaintiffs further alleged that the pay disparities at issue arose primarily from defendant's alleged use of prior salary in setting employee compensation. Importantly, however, defendant disputed that it relied on prior salary in setting employee compensation in the manner alleged. Ultimately, in certifying the class, the court determined that—even for a large class of employees who perform work within three different job codes—common questions predominated such that the issues as alleged by plaintiffs were susceptible to generalized classwide proof. If upheld on appeal, the decision could have significant implications for California EPA class actions. The Substantially Similar Standard and Job Classification Systems as Sufficient Classwide Proof To establish a violation of the California EPA, a plaintiff must establish that there exists a pay differential between the plaintiff and an alleged comparator for the performance of "substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions."2 If the plaintiff meets this initial showing, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the disparity is excused by one of the four available statutory affirmative defenses.3 The preliminary issue examined by the court was whether there was sufficient common proof from which plaintiffs could establish that class members within each of the three job codes performed "substantially similar work" to that of their male comparators.4 Predictably, plaintiffs argued that those employees within a particular job code performed substantially similar work for purposes of their EPA claim. They further claimed that female employees were paid less than their male counterparts for work performed within the same job codes, and that an annual average wage differential of $13,000 existed between class members and their alleged male comparators.5 The court acknowledged that it was a question of fact for the jury to determine whether the work performed by the putative class members was, in reality, substantially similar to that performed by the alleged comparators. The court determined, however, that, for purposes of class certification, plaintiffs had provided sufficient common evidence from which a jury could reach this conclusion.6 In concluding that the case was appropriate for class treatment, the court first relied on the job codes themselves. The court emphasized that defendant utilized a "centralized and systematized" manner to organize its employees and, used these systems to determine employee compensation through assignments to the company-wide job codes. Within each job code, defendant grouped employees by "job function, job specialty, job family and responsibility level, and assign[ed] each job code a specific salary range."7 The court further highlighted that defendant's Person Most Qualified (PMQ) deponent confirmed that employees within their assigned job codes shared "basic skills, knowledge and abilities and similar levels of responsibility and impact."8 From this evidence, the court concluded "[t]his substantial evidence supporting a top-down, centralized system makes Plaintiffs' pay claims particularly appropriate for classwide resolution."9 In response, defendant emphasized that individualized issues predominated, thus making class treatment inappropriate. Indeed, defendant argued that the evidence established that there were compensation variations within job code classifications that related to the specific job duties of each individual employee "that render comparison at the job-code level improper."10 The court disagreed, pointed to the broad definition of the California EPA's "substantially similar" standard, and concluded that "purported differences in job duties do not defeat class certification."11 The Bona Fide Affirmative Defense: Consistent Application As stated above, an employer may excuse a pay disparity between substantially similar employees where it is based upon one of the four affirmative defenses permitted by the statute.12 The fourth, and most commonly used of these exceptions, provides that a "bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience" can excuse a pay disparity so long as it is job-related, not based on or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, consistent with business necessity, reasonably applied, and accounts for the entire wage differential.13 In arguing that class treatment was inappropriate, defendant emphasized the lack of common issues between the putative class members and stressed that variations in job duties of individuals, even those grouped within the same job code, precluded compensation comparisons because the compensation provided to each employee was based on individualized determinations, typically driven by individual hiring managers.14 Defendant further highlighted that in defending any alleged pay disparity between a female class member and a male comparator, defendant would be required to rely upon "individualized inquiry and proof."15 The court disagreed and determined that defendant was not "entitled to present individualized evidence with respect to each and every class member to attempt to establish that some 'bona fide' factor is responsible for that woman's lower pay as comparted to every man in the job code who is paid more."16 Instead, the court concluded that defendant's affirmative defenses were susceptible to common evidence in the form of expert statistical analysis of employee compensation data.17 The court further determined that defendant's argument—that individualized proof would be required to legitimize class member pay disparities because individual class members within the same job codes performed different job duties and were compensated based on individualized determinations—lacked merit. It concluded that defendant's argument amounted to little more than an attempt to find post-facto justifications sufficient to excuse the alleged pay disparities. The court held that such efforts were inconsistent with the text of the statute itself. The court cited secondary sources and federal case law to support its position that in order to be "bona fide" under the statute, the factor must have been consistently applied by the employer in making compensation decisions.18 "[I]t is not reasonable or consistent with the purposes of the EPA to permit an employer to pick and choose factors inconsistently and idiosyncratically to justify disparate pay decisions for employees performing substantially similar work . . . [i]f the factors are not used consistently to determine pay, they are not 'bona fide.'"19 Ultimately, the court held that the jury could decide "using common evidence from the opposing [statistical] experts which expert is more persuasive, and whether Defendant has established that bona fide, job-related factors account for the entire gender pay gap."20 Alleged Reliance on Prior Salary In analyzing the EPA, and especially, the UCL claims, the court made much of plaintiffs' contention that defendant relied on employee salary history in making compensation decisions. According to plaintiffs, defendant had a "policy or practice" of using prior pay to "set starting salary" and this policy or practice had a disparate impact on women.21 For purposes of class certification, the court concluded that plaintiffs presented sufficient common, generalized evidence from which a jury could determine whether defendant had, in fact, utilized such a system in making compensation decisions. In support of its conclusion, the court cited the "substantial common evidence" provided by plaintiffs "that Defendant had a policy or practice of using prior pay to set starting pay."22 This evidence included documents that suggested that, prior to October 2017, hiring managers solicited salary history information from job applicants during the hiring process, declaration evidence that defendant made efforts to "match" lateral employee salaries based on prior pay at previous employer, declaratory evidence from a former employee who stated the prior pay was the "primary factor" she used when setting pay for new hires, and expert analysis that showed that prior pay was "highly predictive" of salary in defendant's employ.23 Indeed, the court and plaintiffs frequently referenced plaintiffs' labor economist expert—even though he concluded that there was only a correlation between employee prior salary and the compensation they received at Oracle. This type of correlation proves only that employees' prior salary was associated with their offered compensation, not that prior salary caused the observed association, or stated differently, that defendant actually relied upon prior salary in setting employee compensation. It is important to note that defendant disputed that it maintained any such "policy or practice" of relying upon employee prior salary in setting compensation and that defendant's own expert disputed that it relied on prior pay in setting employee salary.24 Nevertheless, the court determined that the contrasting expert opinions, taken together, constituted sufficient common and generalized evidence. "A jury can weigh this contrary common evidence and determine whether or not Defendant had a policy of using prior pay to set salaries, and whether or not that policy had a disparate impact on women."25 What This Ruling Means for California Employers The case could have significant implications with respect to how other putative California EPA class actions are prosecuted and how employers defend against such actions. For example, one way in which employers may seek to eliminate pay disparities between comparable employees is to streamline compensation systems and policies. In short, employers can deploy a top-down approach—to remove individual hiring manager or recruiter discretion—to ensure that compensation decisions are implemented in a consistent manner across the organization. Such a uniform approach may have the effect of eliminating, or limiting, pay disparities between employees of opposite protected categories who perform substantially similar work, as it removes individualized decision-making, which often drives variations in comparable employee compensation. Unfortunately, the Oracle decision suggests that the more organized and streamlined an organization becomes in terms of compensation policies and practices, the easier it may be for plaintiffs' counsel to argue that class treatment is appropriate as theoretically more easily susceptible to generalized, common proof. Similarly, the court suggests that individualized variations in compensation between employees within the same job codes, even if based on legitimate, job-related reasons, may not be relied upon to avoid liability unless the employer can establish that it applied these job-related factors in a consistent way. The statute itself does not specifically require that "bona fide" factors be consistently applied.26 That said, assuming other California courts adopt this standard, concerns of consistent application of bona fide factors may further incentivize employers to adopt a strictly uniform compensation policy, and ensure that the policy applied consistently to employees across the organization. The effect of such a streamlined approach would, again, potentially bolster an argument by plaintiffs' counsel that class treatment is appropriate.27 The Oracle decision also presents potentially concerning precedent with respect to the validity of expert statistical analysis in analyzing EPA claims. The court relied principally on plaintiffs' limited circumstantial evidence that defendant had, in fact, relied on prior pay in setting employee compensation. Plaintiffs established that the employer solicited prior salary information from job applicants, when this practice was lawful, and that there was a correlation between a job applicant's prior salary and the compensation offered. This correlation does not prove that defendant relied upon prior salary in setting employee compensation. Neither does this correlation constitute evidence that defendant engaged in compensation discrimination in violation of the California EPA or UCL. For example, if the defendant class members all independently decided to change jobs whenever they received a job offer that was 10% above what they were paid at a current employer, the result would be an extremely high correlation between starting pay and prior salary, but that would not mean defendant based its offer on prior pay. Moreover, from a manageability perspective, the verdict forms for the trial in this matter could be quite voluminous. Should the case proceed to trial, a jury will be forced to return a verdict regarding each job title within each of the three job codes. For example, a jury likely would need to determine as to whether each job title, within each job code, performed substantially similar work as defined by the statute. A jury could not conclude that women in one job title should be presumed to be underpaid simply because that was true of women working in another job title, or even for all women on average within the class. As such, a jury would have to reach separate decisions regarding women employed in each and every job code. The court's decision to certify the case as a class action is not a final judgment and, therefore, is not subject to immediate appeal.28 Footnotes 1 Jewett et al. v. Oracle Am., Inc., 17-CIV-02669, at 3 (Apr. 30, 2020, Cal. Super. Ct.). 2 Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 1197.5. 3 Id. 4 "The question before the Court now is not whether Oracle's job codes categorize jobs on the basis of substantially similar or equal skills, effort and responsibility but whether Plaintiffs have offered substantial common evidence that they do so." Id. at 14. 5 Id. at 8. 6 Id. at 10. 7 Id. at 4. 8 Id. (citations omitted). 9 "Plaintiffs have presented substantial common evidence to establish that Defendant categorized its employees into a granular, uniform, and company-wide system of job codes. Substantial common evidence demonstrates that Defendant's uniform, company-wide job code system already sorts jobs by the skills, responsibilities, and effort that constitute substantially equal or similar work required for comparisons under the EPA." Id. at 11. 10 Id. at 13. 11 Id. at 14. 12 Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 1197.5. 13 "This factor shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that the factor is not based on or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, is job related with respect to the position in question, and is consistent with a business necessity. For purposes of this subparagraph, "business necessity" means an overriding legitimate business purpose such that the factor relied upon effectively fulfills the business purpose it is supposed to serve. This defense shall not apply if the employee demonstrates that an alternative business practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential." Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 1197.5. 14 Id. at 5. 15 Id. 16 Id. at 16 (quotations omitted). 17 Id. 18 Id. at 17-18. 19 Id. at 18. "This legal requirement—that the job-related factors be bona fide and reasonably and therefore consistently applied, eliminates Defendant's argument that its defenses are necessarily individualized: either Defendant applied its bona fide factors consistently within its job codes—and it can prove the impact on pay of these factors through statistical analyses of average pay differentials without resorting to individualized proof—or it did not apply them consistently and lacks and affirmative defense. Similarly, if Plaintiffs can prove that the actual factor causing the gendered pay differential was prior pay (a prohibited factor under the EPA), after controlling for other factors, that likewise would defeat Defendant's proffered bona fide factors." Id. at 19. 20 Id. at 17. 21 Id. at 20. 22 Id. 23 Id. 20-21. 24 Id. at 22. 25 Id. 26 Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 1197.5. 27 Here, especially, employers should remember the importance of job descriptions. While job descriptions are not determinative evidence, they can be used as one legitimate way to identify the different type of work performed by employees, even when they are grouped in similar job codes. 28 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 904.1.[GN] OUTSOURCE INC: Fails to Protect Patient Data, Freestone Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA FREESTONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OUTSOURCE, INC. and SPARTA COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00582-MAB (S.D. Ill., June 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Business Practices Act, violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated patients, alleges that the Defendants failed to protect patients' personally identifiable information (PII) against cyberattacks and security threats. On October 15, 2018, Defendant Outsource's servers were breached by a cybercriminal and the PII of Defendant Sparta's former and current patients was stolen. The PII that was compromised included patient names, dates of birth, dates of service, hospital encounter numbers, account balances, insurance identification numbers, and Social Security numbers. Defendant Outsource only discovered the breach over two months later and it did not notify the patients until more than four months later, on May 2, 2019. The Plaintiff claims that the data breach was caused by the Defendants' violation of their obligation to abide by best practices and industry standards concerning the security of their claims management or billing systems. The Defendants failed to comply with security standards and allowed their patients' PII to be stolen by failing to implement security measures that could have prevented or mitigated the data breach. Outsource, Inc. provides claims management services to healthcare providers throughout the United States, with its principal place of business in Pewaukee, Wisconsin. Sparta Community Hospital is a healthcare provider with its principal office located at 818 E. Broadway, Sparta, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com llafornara@cohenandmalad.com - and – Samuel Strauss, Esq. Austin Doan, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP 613 Williamson Street Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 E-mail: Sam@turkestrauss.com AustinD@turkestrauss.com - and – J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Martin F. Schubert, Esq. Peter J. Jannace, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com martys@bsjfirm.com peterj@bsjfirm.com PACIFICA OF THE VALLEY: Fails to Track Hours Worked, Mora Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nichole Mae Mora, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PACIFICA OF THE VALLEY CORPORATION d.b.a. PACIFICA HOSPITAL OF THE VALLEY, a Delaware corporation, SUSAN TAMALE, an individual and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22299 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 12, 2020), arises out of the Company's deficient time-keeping practices that violate the California Labor Code. Since the beginning of the Plaintiff's employment at Pacifica Corp., Pacifica Corp. has failed to provide its Employees with a proper time-keeping system to track hours worked, time spent on required meal breaks, and to differentiate overtime and regular work, according to the complaint. In lieu of a time keeping system, Pacifica Corp. totals its Employees' hours worked per day and subtracts time for required uncompensated meal and rest breaks, regardless of whether the Employees had actually taken meal or rest breaks for that period. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a full-time licensed registered nurse beginning July 2, 2019, until August 14, 2019. Pacifica is a healthcare facility that employs different types of healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fahim Farivar, Esq. Brian Ning, Esq. FARIVAR LAW & TAX FIRM, APC 18345 Ventura Blvd., Suite No. 518 Tarzana, CA 91356 Phone: 818.796.2060 Facsimile: 818.812.7868 Email: Fahim@farivarlaw.com Brian@farivarlaw.com PALLETONE OF FLORIDA: Brown et al. Sue Over Race Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- SEBRASKAN BROWN and COLUMBUS MIZELL (on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated) Plaintiffs, v. PALLETONE OF FLORIDA, INC. (d/b/a PalletOne, Inc.), Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00079-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga., June 16, 2020) is a civil rights lawsuit seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, plus attorney's fees and the costs of litigation, for discrimination and harassment on the basis of race perpetrated through the conduct of Defendant against Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated consisting of African-American employees, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as well as Defendant's common law and statutory obligations to Plaintiffs. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs performed work for PalletOne within the jurisdiction of this Court during the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs have experienced near-continuous racial discrimination and harassment since their respective hires. Plaintiff Brown was hired by Pallet One in August of 2016, was terminated on November 25, 2019, and filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on February 20, 2020. Plaintiff Mizell was hired by Pallet One in June of 2019, was terminated on January 26, 2020, and filed a Charge of Discrimination with EEOC on February 18, 2020. During Plaintiffs' employment, they were repeatedly and continuously discriminated against, harassed, and subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of their race, including, but not limited to being: a) referred to as "Nigger" on multiple occasions; b) told that a whip would "make their black asses do some work"; and c) told to "do some work if [they] were not busy doing the jigga-boo shuffle"; and d) and treated as an inferior, second-class citizen. Further, Plaintiff Mizell complained to PalletOne in November 2019, specifically identifying one Caucasian co-worker who repeatedly made racist comments, Christie Walker. Despite a purported "no tolerance policy" for racist behavior, PalletOne allowed Ms. Walker to continue working with Plaintiffs. Not surprisingly, Ms. Walker's racist behavior towards African-Americans continued, and PalletOne did nothing more to prevent such behavior beyond a short meeting with Ms. Walker and by allegedly telling its employees to be nice to each other. PalletOne of Florida, Inc. is a Georgia-based manufacturing company specializing in the manufacture of pallets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq. THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC 152 New Street, Suite 109B Macon, GA 31201 Telephone: (404) 944-3128 E-mail: tyler@kaspersfirm.com PASTRAMI PRINCE: Caballero et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, OT for Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CARMELO CABALLERO DE LA CRUZ, ARNULFO VAZQUEZ BASURTO, OMAR ESPINOBARROS VAZQUEZ, and RAYMUNDO VAZQUEZ ANGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PASTRAMI PRINCE INC. (D/B/A PASTRAMI QUEEN), PASTRAMI LEASEHOLD LLC (D/B/A PASTRAMI QUEEN), 1125 KOSHER DELI CORP (D/B/A PASTRAMI QUEEN), STEVEN FRIEDMAN, BARRY FRIEDMAN, ALLAN PHILLIPS, DAVID DOE, THIERNO SISSE, JOHN PHILLIPS, and JACK DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04643 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated workers appropriate minimum wages, overtime pay, and spread of hours compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek and by failing to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their worked hours. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dishwasher, food preparer, and ostensibly as delivery workers at a Kosher deli under the name Pastrami Queen located at 1125 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York between 2014 and 2020. Pastrami Prince Inc., d/b/a Pastrami Queen, is an operator of a Kosher restaurant with its principal place of business at 1125 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. Pastrami Leasehold LLC, d/b/a Pastrami Queen, is an operator of a Kosher restaurant with its principal place of business at 470 Herrington Drive, Austerlitz, New York. 1125 Kosher Deli Corp, d/b/a Pastrami Queen, is an operator of a Kosher restaurant with its principal place of business at 1125 Lexington Ave Front 2, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 PATENAUDE & FELIX: Capi Files FDCPA Class Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patenaude and Felix, A.P.C., et al. The case is styled as Maria Capi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Patenaude and Felix, A.P.C., a California Professional Corporation, John Does 1 through 25, Jane Does 1 through 25, Case No. 2:20-cv-05313-DSF-AFM (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Patenaude & Felix is a debt collection law firm based in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kian Mottahedeh, Esq. SM LAW GROUP APC 16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 660 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 855-5950 Fax: (818) 885-5952 Email: kian@smlawca.com PHOENIX TREE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 26 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited (NYSE: DNK), Groupon, Inc. (NASDAQ: GRPN), SCWorx Corp. (NADSAQ: WORX), and Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited (NYSE: DNK) Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 22, 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"). Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 26, 2020 Phoenix Tree, a holding company that leases and manages apartments in China, held its initial public offering ("IPO") for its American Depositary Shares ("ADS") on January 22, 2020, in which it sold 9.6 million ADS at $13.50 per share. The complaint, filed on April 24, 2020, alleges that the IPO materials misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the nature and level of renter complaints that Phoenix Tree had received before and as of the IPO, plus the Company's exposure to significant adverse developments resulting from the onset of COVID-19 in China. The company's ADS are presently trading around $6.59 each, or nearly half of their IPO price. For more information on the Phoenix Tree Holdings class action go to: https://bespc.com/DNK Groupon, Inc. (NASDAQ: GRPN) Class Period: November 4, 2019 to February 28, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2020 On February 18, 2020, Groupon reported fourth quarter 2019 sales of $612.3 million, a nearly 23% decline over the prior year period. The Company's adjusted EBITDA for fiscal 2019 was reported at $227.2 million, a significant miss from its November 2019 forecast of $270 million. Groupon also announced a "transformational plan to exit Goods" in North America by the third quarter and globally by the end of the year. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.35, or over 44%, to close at $1.70 per share on February 19, 2020. The complaint, filed on April 28, 2020, 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 the Company was experiencing fewer customer engagements in its Goods category; (2) that Groupon relied on its Goods category to drive its sales, especially during the holiday season; (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. For more information on the Groupon class action go to: https://bespc.com/GRPN SCWorx Corp. (NASDAQ: WORX) Class Period: April 13, 2020 to April 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2020 On April 13, 2020, SCWorx announced that it had received a committed purchase order of two million COVID-19 rapid testing kits, "with provision for additional weekly orders of 2 million units for 23 weeks, valued at $35M per week." On this news, the Company's share price increased by $9.77, to close at $12.02 per share on April 13, 2020. On April 17, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report doubting the validity of the deal, calling it "completely bogus." According to Hindenburg Research, the Covid-19 test supplier that SCWorx is buying from, Promedical, has a Chief Executive Officer "who formerly ran another business accused of defrauding its investors and customers" and "was also alleged to have falsified his medical credentials," Promedical claimed to the FDA and regulators in Australia to be offering COVID-19 test kits manufactured by Wondfo, but "Wondfo put out a press release days ago stating that Promedical 'fraudulently mispresented themselves' as sellers of its Covid-19 tests and disavowed any relationship," and the buyer that SCWorx claimed to have lined up does not appear to be "capable of handling hundreds of millions of dollars in orders." On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.19, or more than 17%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $5.76 per share on April 21, 2020. On April 22, 2020, the SEC halted trading of the Company's stock. As of the filing of the complaint, trading remains halted. The complaint, filed on April 29, 2020, 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 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. For more information on the SCWorx class action go to: https://bespc.com/WORX Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL) Class Period: March 5, 2019 to March 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2020 On March 2, 2020, Hallmark Financial announced that it had decided to exit from its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business and reported a $63.8 million loss development for prior underwriting years. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.10, or more than 14%, to close at $12.23 per share on March 3, 2020. On March 11, 2020, Hallmark Financial disclosed that it had dismissed its independent auditor, BDO USA, LLP ("BDO"), due to a disagreement regarding estimates for reserves for unpaid losses, among other things. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.39, or over 29%, to close at $5.71 per share on March 12, 2020. On March 17, 2020, Hallmark Financial filed with the SEC a letter from BDO in which BDO stated "BDO expanded significantly the scope of its audit on January 31, 2020, with respect to which a substantial portion of the requests had not been received and/or tested prior to our termination." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.08, or 2.5%, to close at $3.12 per share on March 18, 2020. The complaint, filed on May 5, 2020, 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 the Company lacked effective internal controls over accounting and financial reporting related to reserves for unpaid losses; (2) that the Company improperly accounted for reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business; (3) that, as a result, Hallmark Financial would be forced to report a $63.8 million loss development for prior underwriting years; (4) that, as a result, Hallmark Financial would exit from its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business; and (5) 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. For more information on the Hallmark Financial class action go to: https://bespc.com/HALL About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] POINT BLANK: Bid to Exclude Expert Reports in Troopers Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, OHIO STATE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant. MIGUEL PORRAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-63130-RUIZ/STRAUSS, No. 19-CV-61881 (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (1) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion to Strike the Expert Report of Sarah Butler as Untimely and to Exclude Her Testimony and Incorporated Memorandum of Law; (2) denied Defendant Point Blank Enterprises, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude the Expert Reports of Christine Cole, Douglas Hermann, and D.C. Sharp; and (3) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Omnibus Motion to Exclude Defendant Point Blank Enterprises' Class Certification Experts and Expert Opinions, Reports and Testimony and Memorandum of Law in Support. The case is a products liability case (or, rather, two consolidated cases) in which the Plaintiffs seek certification of certain classes. The Defendant makes bulletproof vests. Many police officers and others buy those bulletproof vests. End users -- the individuals who ultimately wear the vests -- often purchase their vests from distributors and not directly from the Defendant. The vests that the Defendant manufactures include concealable vests. The Defendant manufactures some models of concealable vests with a Self-Suspending Ballistic System ("SSBS"). It also manufactures other models of concealable vests that are more commonly referred to as traditional vests. Both SSBS vests and traditional vests have two main components -- ballistic panels and a carrier. The ballistic panels are designed to stop bullets, and the carriers hold the ballistic panels. With traditional vests, the carrier is a single piece. The front and back of the carrier are connected by shoulder straps sewn into the vest. On the other hand, the front and back of SSBS vests are two separate pieces. Shoulder straps -- that are not sewn into the panels or carrier -- are then used to connect the front to the back. It is the Defendant's SSBS vests that are at issue in these putative class action cases. The Plaintiffs allege that the SSBS vests manufactured by the Defendant are defective (from the time of purchase) and that they can, and have, fallen apart or fallen down while officers are in the line of duty. The Plaintiffs, however, do not contend that the ballistic panels themselves are defective. The Plaintiffs in the first putative class action case (18-cv-63130; "2018 Case") bring breach of warranty claims in Counts I and II and a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") in Count III. In the second putative class action case (19-cv-61881; "2019 Case"), a single Plaintiff brings breach of warranty claims in Counts I and II, a California False Advertising Law ("FAL") claim in Count III, a California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") claim in Count IV, and a fraudulent concealment claim in Count V. In the Plaintiffs' class certification motion, the Plaintiffs in the 2018 Case seek certification of a FDUTPA class and a warranty class. The Plaintiff in the 2019 Case seeks certification of a California warranty class and a California UCL/FAL class concerning the UCL, FAL, and fraudulent concealment claims. The matter came before the Court upon the following motions: (1) the Butler Motion; (2) the Defendant's Daubert Motion; and (3) the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion. The Butler Motion is before the Court on referral from the District Court for disposition of all discovery matters. The Defendant's Daubert Motion and the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion were referred to the Court pursuant to the District Court's Order Referring Motions to Magistrate Judge. The Defendant's Daubert Motion seeks to exclude the expert report and testimony of D.C. Sharp in connection with the District Court's consideration of the parties' class certification motions. Sharp is a proposed damages expert who has opined on whether any method exists to calculate class-wide damages. He concluded that such a method exists. Sharp has prepared both an affirmative expert report and a reply. The Defendant does not challenge Sharp's qualifications. However, it does challenge the reliability and fit of Sharp's methodology and conclusions. Although the Defendant seems to conflate reliability and fit to a certain degree (the Plaintiffs do the same), it is evident that most of the Defendant's arguments pertain to fit/relevance. Regardless, its arguments ultimately go to the weight that the factfinder may choose to afford to Sharp's opinions and not to the admissibility of Sharp's opinions. Although the Defendant raises some potentially valid criticisms of Sharp's methodology, Magistrate Judge Strauss does not find that Sharp's methodology is so unreliable to warrant exclusion. Because Sharp had a reasonable basis for using the Python carrier as a baseline to measure damages, his methodology at least meets the "sufficiently reliable" threshold. Therefore, Sharp's report and testimony will not be excluded as unreliable. As to fit, the Magistrate Judge finds that Sharp approximated the ultimate costs of vests sold through distributors and scoured through a myriad of data sets. He did far more than merely multiply some numbers. Although at least some lay people are likely capable of performing the same analysis and calculations, the work undertaken by Sharp is undoubtedly beyond the understanding of the average lay person. Moreover, his expertise should enable him to assist the trier of fact with understanding the work that he performed and the conclusions that he reached. Therefore, the Magistrate will not exclude Sharp on this ground either. The Plaintiffs seek to exclude the expert report and testimony of the Defendant's expert, Sarah Butler, arguing that the Defendant's disclosure of Butler was untimely. The Defendant disclosed Butler as a rebuttal expert to Sharp. According to Butler, she was tasked with evaluating the Plaintiffs' contentions that they and all putative class members would not have purchased their PBE vests had information about the alleged SSBS defect been disclosed, and that, as a result, all class members suffered harm and are entitled to damages, as reflected in the Sharp Report. Butler conducted a survey to guide her evaluation. The Magistrate Judge holds that Butler is being excluded on a very limited basis. She is not being excluded in any manner in the 2018 Case. In the 2019 Case, Butler is not being excluded in any manner with respect to the Court's consideration of the proposed warranty class. She is only being excluded on the issue of materiality with respect to the proposed UCL/FAL class, but she may respond to any of Sharp's opinions (or assumptions) concerning that class. Butler, however, may not be used to affirmatively establish a lack of materiality for the proposed UCL/FAL class in the 2019 Case. The Magistrate Judge notes that the limited exclusion of Butler is consistent with other cases. The Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion seeks to exclude the expert testimony and affirmative report of Bruce A. Strombom, portions of Strombom's rebuttal report, and the expert testimony and rebuttal report of Butler (to the extent Butler is not excluded pursuant to the Butler Motion). The Magistrate Judge denies the Motion as to Butler, and grants in part and denies in part as to Strombom. While the Magistrate will not exclude Strombom's reports (other than the last sentence of paragraph 20 of his rebuttal report), Strombom may not offer the first opinion in his affirmative expert report -- that the Plaintiffs have not proposed a methodology to calculate class-wide damages. In addition, if Strombom testifies at any class certification hearing, he may not include any improper factual narrative in his testimony. The Defendant should warn Strombom not to cross this line. For the reasons discussed, Magistrate Judge Strauss (i) granted in part and denied in part the Butler Motion. Butler (and her expert report) may not be used to address the issue of materiality regarding certification of the proposed UCL/FAL class in the 2019 Case, unless the Plaintiffs cite opinions of Sharp on the issue. The Butler Motion is otherwise denied. Judge Strauss denied the Defendant's Daubert Motion. The Judge also granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion. It is denied as to Butler. It is granted in part and denied in part as to Strombom. Specifically, Strombom's first opinion in his affirmative expert report, that the Plaintiffs have not proposed a methodology to calculate class-wide damages, is excluded. In addition, the last sentence of paragraph 20 of Strombom's rebuttal report is excluded. Furthermore, Strombom may not provide any improper factual narrative if he testifies at any class certification hearing. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 3, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/31xw6g from Leagle.com. PRESTIGE CAFE: Underpays Grill Men, Ochoa Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ LUIS ANTONIO ORTIZ OCHOA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRESTIGE CAFE & DELI CORP. (D/B/A PRESTIGE CAFE); PRESTIGE CAFE & DELI II, LTD. (D/B/A PRESTIGE CAFE & DELI II); and BEJAD MUSLEH, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-04462 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Ochoa was employed by the Defendants as grill man. Prestige Cafe & Deli Corp. (d/b/a Prestige Cafe) owns and operates a sandwich shop located in New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 604 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 QUALCOMM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Camp Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Carey Camp, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Inc., Steven K. Mollenkopf, and George S. Davis, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-1208-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. The Plaintiff represents a class of those who purchased Qualcomm stock between Jan. 31, 2018, and March 12, 2018 and who are suing under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Qualcomm is a United States wireless technology company that manufactures chips and other technologies for mobile devices. In early November 2017, Singapore chipmaker Broadcom offered to acquire Qualcomm for $105 billion, or $70 per share. The Plaintiffs allege that on Jan. 29, 2018, Qualcomm "secretly filed a voluntary request" for The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ("CFIUS") to investigate Broadcom Limited. CFIUS is a federal interagency committee that reviews certain investments in United States business to determine whether such transactions threaten to impair national security. It makes recommendations regarding such transactions for the President's ultimate determination. On Nov. 12, 2017, Qualcomm rejected Broadcom's unsolicited initial bid. Broadcom responded by mounting a hostile takeover. On Dec. 4, 2017, Broadcom launched a proxy fight. On Dec. 6, 2017, Broadcom announced that it had initiated a process to redomicile in the United States. On Jan. 29, 2018, the Defendants filed a unilateral voluntary notice requesting that CFIUS review Broadcom's offer. As alleged, the Defendants emphasized value and antitrust concerns as reasons that investors should vote against Broadcom's directors. The Defendants maintained that they were engaged in meaningful negotiations with Broadcom. On Feb. 26, 2018, Reuters confirmed that CFIUS was looking at the deal and had been in touch with at least one of the companies and that lawmakers were pressuring the White House to review the transaction before the stockholder vote on March 6, 2018. On March 4, 2018, two days before Qualcomm's shareholder meeting, CFIUS ordered Qualcomm to postpone its director elections by 30 days so CFIUS could conduct a full investigation. Following the announcement, Qualcomm's stock price declined 4.02%. On March 12, 2018, CFIUS released a letter explaining that its initial determination was based on the information submitted by Qualcomm in its unilateral voluntary notice on Jan. 29, 2018, responses to questions and information provided by both Qualcomm and Broadcom and further investigation could include referral to the President for decision. In an executive order dated March 12, 2018, the President blocked Broadcom's attempted takeover. Following the news, Qualcomm's stock price dropped 4.95%. The instant action was filed on June 8, 2018. On March 8, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint that names Qualcomm and Defendants Mollenkopf, Rosenberg, Jacobs, and Horton, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The Defendants' seek judicial notice of the following documents: (A) Excerpt from Qualcomm's Definitive Proxy Statement filed on Schedule 14A with the SEC on Jan. 5, 2018; (B) Qualcomm's Additional Definitive Proxy Soliciting Materials filed on Schedule 14A with the SEC on Jan. 16, 2018; (C) Qualcomm's Press Release filed on Schedule 14A with the SEC on Jan. 23, 2018; (D) Interim Order dated March 4, 2018 from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States filed by Qualcomm with the SEC on March 5, 2018; (E) Letter dated March 5, 2018 from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States filed by Qualcomm with the SEC on March 5, 2018; (F) Letter dated March 11, 2018 from the U.S. Department of Treasury filed by Qualcomm with the SEC on March 12, 2018; (G) Order of President of the United States of America regarding the Proposed Takeover of Qualcomm Incorporated by Broadcom Limited dated March 12, 2018 filed by Qualcomm with the SEC on March 13, 2018; (H) Article by the New York Times dated Nov. 4, 2017 titled "Chip Maker Broadcom Said to Mull a Bid for Qualcomm"; (I) Article by the New York Times dated Nov. 6, 2017 titled "Broadcom Targets Qualcomm in Largest-Ever Tech Deal"; (J) Article by Reuters dated Feb. 26, 2018 titled "Exclusive: Secretive U.S. Security Panel Discussing Broadcom's Qualcomm Bid-Sources"; (K) historical stock price data for Qualcomm from January 29, 2018 through March 13, 2018 published by Yahoo! Finance at https://finance.yahoo.com; and (L) historical stock price data for Qualcomm from April 1, 2019 through May 9, 2019 published by Yahoo! Finance at https://finance.yahoo.com. Judge Battaglia grants the Defendants' request for judicial notice. The Judge finds that Exhibits A-J are each paraphrased or quoted in the Complaint and/or forms the basis for the Plaintiffs' claims. Further, Exhibits A-L also may be judicially noticed. Courts may take judicial notice of SEC filings and news articles. The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under Section 10(b) since they fail to identify any actionable misstatement or omission, fail to adequately plead scienter, and fail to adequately plead loss causation. Further, they argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Section 20(a). The Plaintiffs' complaint contains a designated section entitled "Defendants' Materially False and Misleading Statements and Omissions of Material Fact." While the Judge notes that the Plaintiffs' complaint does contain large block quotes, their complaint does single out the actual statements that are the basis of their securities fraud claim. The Judge grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss regarding their not actionable statements. The Judge agrees with the Defendants that these statements are not actionable. The cases cited by the Plaintiffs address challenges to investors' standing under Article III, whereas the Defendants are asserting that these statements as pled are not actionable. The Ninth Circuit has held that actionable statements are limited to those made before the Plaintiff purchased the relevant stock. Accordingly, the statements made on Feb. 16, 20, 22, 26, and March 1 are disregarded as they are after the Plaintiffs last acquired stock. The Judge denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss based failure to plead on misleading statements. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged that Qualcomm's statements may have been misleading as they failed to disclose that they were actively engaged in discussions with CFIUS. This plausibly could have resulted in the market evaluating a greater risk of CFIUS blocking the transaction rather than the normal low risk that CFIUS would block a transaction. He must also accept the Plaintiffs' allegations as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. A factual dispute is appropriate at summary judgment or trial. The Judge grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss regarding the element of scienter. The Judge holds that there is an opposing inference that the Defendants did not think the disclosure was required. The inference is shown by the fact that Qualcomm did disclose several warnings regarding the CFIUS risk. The allegations in the complaint simply do not adequately allege an inference of scienter. The Judge also grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss regarding loss causation. The stock drops on March 5 and 6, 2018 were minimal. Furthermore, there is a more plausible explanation that the market reacted to CFIUS' action and not that Qualcomm had provided notice to CFIUS. On March 12, 2018, the President blocked the deal. Loss causation requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an economic loss was caused by the defendant's misrepresentations, rather than some intervening event. It is quite evident that the stock drop on March 13, 2018 was connected to the President's order rather than a misrepresentation by Qualcomm. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs cannot establish loss causation based on an intervening event. Finally, Section 20(a) imposes liability on control persons. To establish liability under Section 20(a), a plaintiff must first prove a primary violation of Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5. Since the Plaintiffs have not pled a violation of Section 10(b), their Section 20(a) claim has also not been adequately established. Accordingly, the Judge grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss regarding Section 20(a). Based on the foregoing, Judge Battaglia granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 10, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/G42oaO from Leagle.com. Carey Camp, Individually and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Spencer Alan Burkholz -- spenceb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Sandesh Jadhav, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice. Gatubhai Mistry, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D. Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Ethan Barlieb, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Luke Orion Brooks -- lukeb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Nicole Schwartzberg, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Richard A. Russo, Jr., Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan Thomas Degnan -- rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Sharan Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Stacey Marie Kaplan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Danielle Suzanne Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Robert R. Henssler, Jr., Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Tricia L. McCormick, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Gerald L. Koenig, Plaintiff, represented by Nicole Schwartzberg, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Stacey Marie Kaplan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Sharan Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP. Qualcomm Incorporated, Steven M. Mollenkopf & George S. Davis, Defendants, represented by Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley, LLP, Peter M. Adams, Cooley LLP & Steven M. Strauss, Cooley, LLP. Paul E. Jacobs, Donald J. Rosenberg & Thomas W. Horton, Defendants, represented by Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley, LLP. Bradley Leach, Movant, represented by Adam C. McCall, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. Daljit Singh, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Phillip Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice. Nancy Nga Nguyen & Anh Luu, Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP. QUANTA SERVICES: Continues to Defend Benton Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al. In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012. Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees. In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint employer of the class members and that it failed to provide adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages. In February 2019, the court granted, in part, the plaintiff class's final motion for summary judgment on damages awarding the class approximately $7.5 million for its meal/rest break and overtime claims and denied the motion as to penalties. Quanta believes the court's decisions on liability and damages are not supported by controlling law and continues to contest its liability and the damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff class in this matter. In July 2019, TNS prevailed, in part, on its own motion for summary judgment on the remaining wage statement and penalty claims, with the court dismissing the claims for penalties based on alleged meal and rest break violations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Quanta Services, Inc. provides specialty contracting services in the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America, and internationally. The company serves electric power, energy, and communications companies, as well as commercial, industrial, and governmental entities. Quanta Services, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. QUICK BOX: Tan Sues in S.D. California Alleging RICO Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quick Box, LLC, et al. The case is styled as LeAnne Tan, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Quick Box, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-H-WVG (S.D. Cal., June 12, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Defendants are Quick Box, LLC, Quick Holdings, LLC, Stephen Adele, Chad Biggins, James Martell, Konnektive LLC, Konnektive Corporation, Martorano Holdings, LLC, Konnektive Rewards, LLC, Matthew Martorano, Kathryn Martorano, Total Health Supply Tua, Inc., DL Group, Inc., Beautiful Skin and Health SL, Inc., Beauty and Balance LV, Inc., Coastal Beauty Care KV, Inc., Coastal Health & Body TML, Inc., Coastal Skin Care DC, Inc., Complete Beautiful Skin DT, Inc., Complete Dietary Health DT, Inc., Diet and Beauty Enterprise JB, Inc., Diet Focus MG, Inc., Dietary 8 Leaves TL, Inc., Dietary Care Group MK, Inc., Dietary Health DL, Inc., Dietary Health Management SL, Inc., Dietary Health Supplements ADN, Inc., Dietary Mind & Body AR, Inc., Dietary Pills TTH, Inc., Dietary Supplements 8 Leaves TL, Inc., Dietary Supplements NS, Inc., EM Strength & Wellness Products, Inc., EW Ideal Health Store, Inc., EW Radiant Skin Store, Inc., Fit and Slim Body Olo, Inc., Fit Body Forever KZ, Inc., Fit Lifestyle Enterprise JD, Inc., Fitness & Health Supplements PKL, Inc., Flawless Beauty Forever MC, Inc., Forever Beautiful Products KZ, Inc., Forever Beauty and Balance JL, Inc., Health & Body Care TN, Inc., Health & Skin Nutrition JLN, Inc., Health & Wellness Products EM, Inc., Health and Diet Products ISA, Inc., Health and Fitness Lifestyle JL, Inc., Health Enterprise AR, Inc., Health Enterprise LT, Inc., Health Skin and Beauty Maya, Inc., Health Skin and Body JB, Inc., Healthy and Slim TT, Inc., Healthy Beautiful Skin JD, Inc., Healthy Body & Balance CD, Inc., Healthy Fit Lifestyle DC, Inc., Healthy Leaves TL, Inc., Healthy Lifestyle Diet JL, Inc., Healthy Skin Group TQH, Inc., Healthy Skin Lifestyle JB, Inc., Healthy Supplements Maya, Inc., Ideal Skin & Health Care NA, Inc., Lasting Fitness & Beauty JLN, Inc., PKL Everlasting Beauty, Inc., Radiant Skin & Body Shop ATN, Inc., Remarkable Beauty TN, Inc., Remarkable Health Supply PO, Inc., Select Skin Products MV, Inc., Skin and Beauty NS, Inc., Skin Beauty & Health JN, Inc., Skin Beauty and Balance CD, Inc., Skin Beauty Enterprise MG, Inc., Skin Beauty Products ISA, Inc., Skin Care Enterprise TTH, Inc., Skin Care Group MK, Inc., Skin Products Rubio, Inc., Strength & Fitness Lifestyle LT, Inc., Total Fitness & Health MC, Inc., Vibrant Face & Beauty Shop ATN, Inc., John Does 1-10, QuickBox is a supply chain management fulfillment center that is vertically integrated into nutritional supplements and skin care products aligned with world-class fulfillment services and dedicated to high volume internet direct-to-consumer brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Michael Kneupper, Esq. 321 North Orange Street, Apartment 306 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (512) 420-8407 Email: kevin@kneuppercovey.com QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Class Actions Seek Tuition Reimbursement --------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Puglisi, writing for Fox61, reports that Quinnipiac University and the University of Connecticut are two of many schools named in a number of class-action lawsuits on behalf of students. The students are seeking repayment for lost time and diminished class experience due to COVID-19 closures. Phil Fraietta -- pfraietta@bursor.com -- of the Manhattan-based law firm Bursor & Fisher is representing students filing against Quinnipiac and UConn. He says they are two of about 55 claims his firm has filed against Universities from coast-to-coast. "You're talking about hundreds of thousands if not millions of people around the country," said Fraietta. "What we say is the students did not get what they paid for." Fraietta says he knows of about 100 similar suits filled by multiple firms. They say they understand COVID-19 put schools in a difficult situation but the students should be refunded for the experience they lost. "They chose to enroll in an opportunity to learn on campus. To engage in meaningful interactions with professors and fellow students and also to use the various facilities that these universities make available to them," said Fraietta. The suits are asking for reimbursement of tuition, housing and dining from the time Universities closed their doors to the end of the semester. If a judge rules in their favor, all students affected would receive compensation. "There are a lot of students and families that are struggling financially right now and in short they did not receive what they paid for," said Daniel Kurowski of Hagens Berman. The law firm of Hagens Berman has also filed a class action suit against Quinnipiac and at least 13 other schools. They represent a QU film major that feels she missed out on valuable hands-on experience and use of equipment that couldn't be replicated at home. She also alleges her professors were not responsive enough, if at all. "Frankly, not only did other students struggle to get through the material but professors are struggling to deliver it," said Kurowski. Spokesmen for UConn and Quinnipiac University say they have credited or refunded students for unused housing and dining. Both did not refund tuition costs because students completed and earned credit for the classes. "Yes, maybe they got credits and got a piece of paper that says congratulations you have a UConn degree, but, is that really what education is," asked Fraietta. With so many lawsuits filed, lawyers say that eventually they will be consolidated into one case for a judge to rule on. There is still quite sometime before that happens. [GN] RAYTHEON CO: Judge Dismisses Speech Therapy Coverage Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Raytheon Co. convinced a federal judge in Boston to dismiss an employee's proposed class action claiming the company's health plan doesn't properly cover non-restorative speech therapy treatments for people with autism. The Raytheon plan's coverage limitation doesn't distinguish between mental health and physical conditions, Judge Richard G. Stearns ruled on June 9 for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Stearns therefore dismissed the Raytheon employee's lawsuit, but allowed the employee to file a new complaint raising claims under federal mental health parity law. [GN] RED ROCK AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barton Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- JASON BARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RED ROCK AUTO GROUP, INC. d/b/a RED ROCK NISSAN, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01627 (D. Colo., June 5, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Rock Auto Group, Inc. d/b/a Red Rock Nissan an automotive dealership that sells vehicles and vehicle service to businesses and individuals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com RELIANT ENERGY: Rogers Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Jayson Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RELIANT ENERGY NORTHEAST LLC, d/b/a NRG HOME a Delaware limited liability company, and JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01284 (N.D. Ohio, June 11, 2020), is brought to stop the Defendants' practice of placing calls using "an artificial or prerecorded voice" to the telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent, and obtain redress for all persons injured by the conduct pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The TCPA prohibits companies, such as NRG, from placing calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice when making calls to cellular telephones without first obtaining consent. The Plaintiff asserts that NRG has violated, and continues to violate, the TCPA and its implementing regulations by placing, or having placed on its behalf, prerecorded calls to cellular telephone subscribers (a) who have not expressly consented to receiving such calls and/or (b) who have expressly requested not to receive such calls. By placing the unsolicited prerecorded calls at issue, the Defendants caused the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class actual harm and cognizable legal injury, says the complaint. Plaintiff Jayson Rogers is a natural person and resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. NRG is a certified supplier in the Ohio Energy Choice Program, offering electricity and natural gas to consumers in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam T. Savett, Esq. SAVETT LAW OFFICES LLC 2764 Carole Lane Allentown PA 18104 Phone: (610) 621-4550 Facsimile: (610) 978-2970 Email: adam@savettlaw.com RUBY PRINCESS: Former Passengers Mull Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Nicola Gage, writing for Aljazeera, reports that hundreds of former passengers who were on board the Ruby Princess cruise ship are looking to sue its operator. The vessel docked in Australia in March and has been linked to hundreds of coronavirus cases there. The Maritime Union says this exposes major flaws in the multi-billion-dollar industry and is calling for a complete overhaul. [GN] RYDER SYSTEM: Glancy Prongay Notes of July 20 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming July 20, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Ryder System, Inc. ("Ryder" or the "Company") (NYSE: R) investors who purchased securities between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period). If you suffered a loss on your Ryder 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 https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/ryder-system-inc/. 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 October 29, 2019, the Company disclosed that "our residual value estimates likely exceeded the expected future values that would be realized upon the sale of power vehicles in our fleet." As a result, Ryder recorded $177 million in additional depreciation expense in connection with the significantly lower residual value estimates. On this news, Ryder's stock price fell $6.68, or more than 12%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $48.44 per share on October 30, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on February 13, 2020, the Company reported that it had incurred a total of $357 million in additional depreciation expense for 2019 due to lower residual values of its fleet, as well as a loss of $58 million on the sale of used vehicles. For fiscal 2020, Ryder expected to incur an additional $275 million in depreciation expense and an additional $20 million estimated loss on used vehicle sales. On this news, the Company's share price fell $10.07 per share, or 20%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $40.12 per share on February 14, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's financial results were inflated as a result of the Company's practice of overstating the residual values of the vehicles in its fleet because there was no reasonable basis to believe that the Company would sell its used vehicles for the amounts that it had assigned to them; and (2) that, as a result, the Company's residual values for its fleet of vehicles exceeded the expected future values that would be realized upon the sale of those vehicles by such a degree that the Company ultimately took a $357 million depreciation charge in 2019 related to Ryder's reduction of its residual values to align them with the amounts for which they could realistically be sold. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ryder securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 20, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action 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 action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact: Charles H. Linehan Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310-201-9150 Toll-Free: 888-773-9224 E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/ If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] SAN FRANCISCO ERS: Faces Goss Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD GOSS, an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SAN FRANCISCO EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM; 10UP INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-03742 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2020), alleges that SFERS failed to adequately protect users' personally identifiable information, to warn users of its inadequate information security practices, and to effectively monitor its Web site and ecommerce platform for security vulnerabilities and incidents. According to the complaint, on February 24, 2020, the Defendants were the target of a widespread data breach whereby personal details of thousands of retirees/members were published, disclosed and/or viewed. The Plaintiff contends that the breached, leaked, viewed and/or disclosed data includes personal details, such as names, home addresses, dates of birth, designated beneficiary information, 1099-21 R tax form information, bank routing numbers and SFERS website user names and passwords. He adds that the information breached, leaked, viewed and/or disclosed was the result of unauthorized access to the pension system vendor's (10Up, Inc.) test data server. The Defendants receive and retain retiree/member personal and private information, including personally identifiable information. The SFERS is the city workers pension fund, which includes over 74,000 members. The SFERS uses a vendor, 10up Inc. to manage and maintain member PII.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Righetti, Esq. John Glugoski, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 Facsimile: (415) 397-9005 E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com jglugoski@righettilaw.com SANTANDER CONSUMER: Spivey Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Carl Spivey, Troy Orr, Kimberly Johnston, Wesley Montgomery, Hugh Kelly, Christine Kelly, Williams Howells, Louise Howells, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC., Case No. 200500821, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 12, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02814 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. (NYSE:SC) is a public, full-service, consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance and third-party servicing. The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kristopher Issac Devyver, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 667-6000 Email: kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com SCWORX CORP: Faces Leeburn Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- CAITLIN LEEBURN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SCWORX CORP. and MARC S. SCHESSEL, Case No. 1:20-cv-04072 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired SCWorx securities between April 13, 2020, and April 17, 2020, inclusive, seeking claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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 April 17, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report doubting the validity of the deal, calling it "completely bogus." On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.19, or more than 17%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $5.76 per share on April 21, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that SCWorx's supplier for COVID-19 tests had previously misrepresented its operations. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff purchased SCWorx securities during the Class Period. SCWorx provides data content and services related to the repair, normalization and interoperability of information for healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com SILK CITY AUTO: Moore Alleges Deceptive Marketing Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- MALKEBU MOORE, INDIVIDUALLY AND OH BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, Vs. SILK CITY AUTO MALL, JOHN DOES 1-10, YASIN TEKIN, MEHMET EMIN TEKIN, Defendants, Case No. PAS-L-001784-20 (N.J. Sup., Passaic Cty., June 17, 2020) alleges that the Defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, utilized deceptive tactics and practices to sell the subject vehicle to the Plaintiff for which the Plaintiff sustained an ascertainable loss. According to the complaint, the dealership in selling the vehicle to the Plaintiff through their salespeople and through the management omitted material facts that the emissions system was defective/removed. The check engine light immediately illuminated after the Plaintiff left the dealership. The Plaintiff contacted the dealership about the check engine light, and they could not/refused to assist the Plaintiff. The car never should have been sold and was not practically operational when sold and this was known by the Defendants. They were provided with a chance to fix the issue and they declined to do so. The Plaintiff would assert that there is a certain reduction in value/cost to repair associated with the possessing of this automobile and as such this creates a measurable or ascertainable loss directly attributable to Silk City's conduct. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants have violated the Consumer Fraud Act by failing to properly disclose and charge for documentary fees and overcharging motor vehicle fees. Silk City Auto Mall is licensed to buy and sell cars in the state of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Rudnick, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RUDNICK, L.L.C. 788 Shrewsbury Avenue Building 2, Suite 204 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Telephone: (732) 842-2070 Facsimile: (732) 879-0213 SILTSTONE RESOURCES: Underpays Oilfield Workers, Barkowsky Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY BARKOWSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SILTSTONE RESOURCES OPERATING II, LLC, Defendant, Case 4:20-cv-00049 (W.D. Tex., June 11, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Barkowsky was employed by the Defendant as oilfield worker. Siltstone Resources is a private exploration and production (E&P) company engaged in the acquisition, development, and production of unconventional resources in the United States. The corporate headquarters are located in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com SKECHERS USA: Securities Suit in New York Concluded --------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit entitled, In Re Skechers Securities Litigation (formerly Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund v. Skechers USA, Inc. Robert Greenberg, David Weinberg and John Vandemore), has been concluded. On September 4, 2018, Laborers Local 235 Benefit Fund filed a securities class action on behalf of itself and purportedly on behalf of other shareholders who purchased the company's stock between October 20, 2017 and July 19, 2018 (the "Class Period"), against the company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, case number 1:18-cv-8039. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the company made materially false statements or omissions of material fact regarding its sales growth and controlling expenses and asserts claims for unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. Beginning October 17, 2018, copycat cases were filed and on January 22, 2019 a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed as In Re Skechers Securities Litigation. On May 13, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed an opposition, and on July 29, 2019, the company filed a reply. The court heard the motion on January 23, 2020 and on March 12, 2020 the court dismissed the matter with prejudice. The plaintiffs have now waived their right of appeal in exchange for the defendants waiving costs. This matter is now concluded. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. SKECHERS USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Wilk Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the parties in the case, Ealeen Wilk v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., have reached a settlement in principle. On September 10, 2018, Ealeen Wilk filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 5:18-cv-01921, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due upon termination and unfair business practices. The complaint seeks actual, compensatory, special and general damages; penalties and liquidated damages; restitutionary and injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; and interest as permitted by law. On July 5, 2019, the court granted, in part, plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. On July 22, 2019, the parties submitted to the court an agreed upon notice to be sent to members of the collective. The parties are delaying the mailing of the Belaire-West privacy opt out notice until after mediation. The parties have agreed to an informal stay of discovery and have stipulated to continue all relevant discovery and motion deadlines accordingly. The parties reached a settlement in principle as a result of a January 27, 2020 mediation but the details of the settlement still need to be worked out and the settlement has to be documented. Skechers said, "In the event the settlement is not concluded successfully, it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position, we believe that we have meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend to defend the case vigorously." Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. SKIPPY FOODS: Faces White Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Isiah White, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SKIPPY FOODS, LLC, HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION, HORMEL FOODS CORPORATE SERVICES, LLC, and HORMEL FOODS SALES, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00742-KGB (E.D. Ark., June 15, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff proper overtime compensation for all hours worked. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week while working for the Defendants. During weeks in which the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours, the Defendants paid an improper overtime rate because the Defendants determined the regular rate of pay solely based on employees' hourly rate, without including the value of the nondiscretionary bonuses that the Defendants provided to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants violated the FLSA and AMWA by not including all forms of compensation, such as nondiscretionary bonuses, in the regular rate when calculating the Plaintiff's overtime pay. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid Label Operator from June 2019 to May 2020. The Defendants conduct business within the State of Arkansas, operating a peanut butter factory in Little Rock.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tess Bradford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: tess@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Nurlybayev Asks Mich. App. to Review Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Rustem Nurlybayev filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled RUSTEM NURLYBAYEV v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC., Case No. 2019-177527-CB, in the Michigan Circuit Court, Oakland County. The complaint alleges that the registration statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 16, 2019, and accompanying amendments, and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on September 13, 2019, in connection with the Company's initial public offering was inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein. The appellate case is captioned as RUSTEM NURLYBAYEV v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC., Case No. 353180, in the Michigan Court of Appeals. Plaintiff-Appellant NURLYBAYEV RUSTEM/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED is represented by: Dwyer Lisa, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LISA DWYER PC 615 Griswold St., Suite 1120 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 510-2793 Defendants-Appellees SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC., KATZMAN DAVID, KATZMAN DAVID, FENKELL ALEXANDER, WAILES KYLE, KATZMAN STEVEN, SCHNALL RICHARD, RAMMELT SUSAN GREENSPON, WALLMAN RICHARD F, HAMILTON CAROL, CAMELOT VENTURE GROUP, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, JP MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS LLC, BOFA SECURITIES INC, JEFFRIES LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES USA LLC, GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES LLC, STIFEL NICOLAUS & COMPANY INC, and WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY LLC are represented by: Matthew P. Allen, Esq. MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC 840 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 150 Troy, MI 48098 Telephone: (248) 879-2000 Facsimile: (248) 879-2001 E-mail: allen@millercanfield.com SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of those who acquired Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. ("Sorrento" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SRNE) securities during the period from May 15, 2020 through May 22, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until July 27, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that Sorrento failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's initial finding of "100% inhibition" in an in vitro virus infection will not necessarily translate to success or safety in vivo, or in person; (ii) the Company's finding was not a "cure" for COVID-19; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, the lawsuit alleges that Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On May 15, 2020, Sorrento announced that it had discovered an antibody that had "demonstrated 100% inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection." On that same day, Defendant Henry Ji, founder and Chief Executive Officer of Sorrento referred to Sorrento's breakthrough as a "cure." On this news, Sorrento shares increased $4.14 to close at $6.76 on May 15, 2020. The stock continued to increase after hours and opened at $9.98 on May 18, 2020, trading at a high of $10.00 that same day, which represented an increase of 281.7% from the May 14, 2020 closing price. On May 20, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report doubting the validity of Sorrento's claims and calling them "sensational," "nonsense" and "too good to be true." On this news, Sorrento shares closed at $5.70 per share on May 20, 2020, representing a decline of $4.30, or 43.0%, from the Class Period high. Finally, on May 22, 2020, BioSpace published an article stating that in a May 21, 2020 interview with Defendants Ji and Brunswick, Ji "insist[ed] that they did not say it was a cure." On this news, Sorrento shares closed at $5.07 per share on May 22, 2020, representing a decline of $4.93, or 49.4%, from the Class Period high. If you acquired Sorrento securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Jesse Claflin of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Contact: Kirby McInerney LLP Jesse Claflin Tel: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: investigations@kmllp.com Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/ [GN] SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Announces Class Action Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SRNE) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and indexed under 20-cv-01066, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Sorrento securities between May 15, 2020, and May 22, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Sorrento securities during the class period, you have until July 27, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com Tel: 888.476.6529 Toll-Free: 888.4-POMLAW), Ext. 7980. Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/ Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Sorrento is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that engages in the development of therapies for the treatment of cancer, autoimmune, inflammatory, and neurodegenerative diseases. On May 8, 2020, Sorrento announced a collaboration with Mount Sinai Health System ("Mount Sinai") for the purpose of "generat[ing] antibody products that would act as a 'protective shield' against SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection, potentially blocking and neutralizing the activity of the virus in naïve at-risk populations as well as recently infected individuals." On May 15, 2020, during pre-market hours, news sources reported that Sorrento had announced the discovery of the STI-1499 antibody, which the Company described as providing "100% inhibition" of COVID-19. That same day, Defendant Henry Ji, Ph.D. ("Ji"), founder and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of Sorrento referred to Sorrento's breakthrough as a "cure." On this news, Sorrento's stock price rose $4.14 per share, or 158.02%, to close at $6.76 per share on May 15, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock continued to increase after hours and opened at $9.98 per share on May 18, 2020, trading at a high of $10.00 per share that same day, which represented an increase of 281.68% from the May 14, 2020 closing price. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Sorrento had overstated the prospects of the STI-1499 antibody for completely inhibiting COVID-19; (ii) the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 18, 2020, during pre-market hours, Vital Knowledge Media, an online investor information resource, expressed skepticism over Sorrento's announcement regarding the discovery of the STI-1499 antibody, describing the Company's statements as "very disingenuous" and stating that "some of the narratives around drugs and vaccines" needed to be tempered. On this news, Sorrento's stock price fell $0.26 per share, or 3.85%, to close at $6.50 per share on May 18, 2020. On May 19, 2020, during pre-market hours, BayStreet.ca Media Corp ("BayStreet"), a leading Canadian online investor news resource, published an article entitled "Sell Sorento," which alleged that statements made by Defendant Ji about the STI-1499 antibody were misleading. Specifically, the article called into question Ji's representations to Fox News, wherein Ji stated "[w]e want to emphasize there is a cure" and "[t]here is a solution that works 100 percent," noting that "[a]stute investors should recognize that no true biotechnology firm would make such a claim" and "Sorrento may just want to get attention and push up the value of its stock" given that "[i]ts balance sheet is poor with a debt/equity of 2 times." The article ultimately concluded by calling the Company's stock "speculative" and cautioned investors to "[a]void." On this news, Sorrento's stock price fell $1.08 per share, or 16.62%, to close at $5.42 per share on May 19, 2020. On May 20, 2020, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a report (the "Hindenburg Report") doubting the validity of Sorrento's claims and calling them "sensational," "nonsense" and "too good to be true." Hindenburg spoke with researchers at Mount Sinai who stated that Sorrento's announcement was "very hyped" and that "nothing in medicine is 100%." The Hindenburg Report also asserted that Sorrento faced significant solvency concerns ahead of its announcement regarding a supposed COVID-19 cure, citing statements by former employees, and asserted that "Sorrento's actions are manipulative at the worst possible time and simply amount to an attempt to shamelessly profiteer off the pandemic." However, that same day, Defendant Ji appeared on Yahoo! Finance to rebut the Hindenburg Report, stating that "investor[s] suspecting . . . another pump and dump" were wrong and that "when you see a virus is not infecting the healthy cell, you know you have the real deal" and "eventually the market [will] catch[] up." On the Hindenburg Report and rebuttal news, Sorrento's stock price closed at $5.70 per share on May 20, 2020, representing a decline of $4.30 per share, or 43.00%, from the Class Period high, on unusually high volume. Finally, on May 22, 2020, Hindenburg published a post on Twitter, alleging that, moments ago, Defendant Ji had "walked back his comments about having a cure," that Hindenburg "believe[s] this amounts to flagrant securities fraud when compared to his statements to Fox [News] last week," and "encourag[ed] regulators to investigate any stock sales in the interim." Specifically, Hindenburg cited comments Ji made in an interview with BioSpace, an online life science industry news outlet. The BioSpace article stated that in a May 21, 2020 interview with Defendants Ji and Mark R. Brunswick, Ph.D. ("Brunswick"), Ji "insist[ed] that they did not say it was a cure." Ji is quoted as saying: On this news, Sorrento's stock price closed at $5.07 per share on May 22, 2020, representing a decline of $4.93 per share, or 49.3%, from the Class Period high, on unusually high volume. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on June 10 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. ("Sorrento" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:SRNE) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 15, 2020 and May 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") are encouraged to contact the firm before July 27, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Sorrento announced an initial finding of "100% inhibition" of an in vitro virus infection, but this finding will not necessarily translate to safety or success in person or in vivo. The Company did not find a "cure" for COVID-19. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Sorrento, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., Office: 310-301-3335 www.schallfirm.com info@schallfirm.com [GN] SPACE BRANDS: Williams Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ------------------------------------------------------------ Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SPACE BRANDS USA LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04556 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site, http://www.evelom.com/,and, therefore, denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's Web site is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her computer. The Defendant is a skin and facial care company that owns and operates the Web site, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Directors Win Dismissal of Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg Law reports that directors of Synchronoss Technologies Inc. persuaded the U.S. District Court for New Jersey to reconsider one of its prior rulings and dismiss a consolidated class action brought by shareholders alleging that the company made misleading public statements about the sale of its cell phone and network activation services line. Chief District Judge Freda L. Wolfson concluded that her original opinion, which found that the shareholder plaintiffs adequately alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and the duty of disclosure, relied in part on erroneous facts. [GN] SYNEOS HEALTH: Defendants Want Vaitkuviene Suit to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Syneos Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants in the class action suit entitled, Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al, No. 18-0029, filed a Notice of Disposition of a Related Action, notifying the Court that a New Jersey Action has been dismissed and requesting that the stay in this action should be lifted. On December 1, 2017, the first of two virtually identical actions alleging federal securities law claims was filed against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of a putative class of its shareholders. The first action, captioned Bermudez v. INC Research, Inc., et al, No. 17-09457 (S.D.N.Y.) in the Southern District of New York, names as defendants the Company, Michael Bell, Alistair MacDonald, Michael Gilbertini, and Gregory S. Rush (the "Bermudez action"), and the second action, Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al, No. 18-0029 (E.D.N.C.) in the Eastern District of North Carolina, filed on January 25, 2018 (the "Vaitkuviene action"), names as defendants the Company, Alistair MacDonald, and Gregory S. Rush (the "Initial Defendants"). Both complaints allege similar claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 10, 2017 and November 8, 2017 and November 9, 2017. The complaints allege that the Company published inaccurate or incomplete information regarding, among other things, the financial performance and business outlook for inVentiv's business prior to the Merger and with respect to the combined company following the Merger. On January 30, 2018, two alleged shareholders separately filed motions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel. On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff Bermudez filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Bermudez action, without prejudice, and as to all defendants. On May 29, 2018, the Court in the Vaitkuviene action appointed the San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund and El Paso Firemen & Policemen's Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs and, on June 7, 2018, the Court entered a schedule providing for, among other things, Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 23, 2018 (later extended to July 30, 2018). Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on July 30, 2018, which also includes a claim against the Initial Defendants, as well as each member of the board of directors at the time of the INC Research - inVentiv Health merger vote in July 2017 (the "Defendants"), contending that the inVentiv merger proxy was misleading under Section 14(a) of the Act. Lead Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders (i) declaring that the lawsuit is a proper class action and (ii) awarding compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, to Lead Plaintiffs and other class members. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on September 20, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to such motion on November 21, 2018, and Defendants filed a Reply to such response on December 5, 2018. On May 23, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Filings in Related Case regarding a New Jersey shareholder action filed on March 1, 2019, pending before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey Action"), and Defendants filed their response on May 31, 2019. On September 26, 2019, the Court ordered, among other things, that this action is stayed in light of the New Jersey Action. On March 23, 2020, Defendants filed a Notice of Disposition of a Related Action, notifying the Court that the New Jersey Action was dismissed and requesting that the stay in this action should be lifted. The Company and the other defendants deny the allegations in these complaints and intend to defend vigorously against these claims. Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in Morrisville, North Carolina. SYNEOS HEALTH: Murakami Class Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------- Syneos Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has dismissed the class action suit entitled, Murakami v. Syneos Health, Inc. et al, No. 19-7377, without prejudice, for failure to serve defendants within the time period required by law. On March 1, 2019, a complaint was filed in the District of New Jersey on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock during the period between May 10, 2017 and February 27, 2019. The action, captioned Murakami v. Syneos Health, Inc. et al, No. 19-7377 (D.N.J.), named the Company and certain of its executive officers as defendants and alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements about its business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiffs sought awards of compensatory damages, among other relief, and their costs and attorneys' and experts' fees. On March 28, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs in the Vaitkuvienë action filed a motion to intervene and to transfer this action to the Eastern District of North Carolina, and the Company filed its response on April 22, 2019. On April 30, 2019, a shareholder filed a motion seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel. On October 16, 2019, the Court ordered that Plaintiff, by November 8, 2019, file proof of service of the Complaint in Compliance with Rule 4, or otherwise show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to properly serve Defendants (the "Order to Show Cause"). The Court further ordered that the action is stayed and that both motions are administratively terminated pending the Court's resolution of the Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff filed a response to the Order to Show Cause on November 8, 2019, and the Company and the other defendants filed a response on November 20, 2019. On March 20, 2020, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for failure to serve defendants within the time period required by law. Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in Morrisville, North Carolina. TACTILE SYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay Continues Investigation ------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCMD) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws. If you suffered a loss on your Tactile 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/tactile-systems-technology-inc/. You can also contact the firm at: Charles H. Linehan Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: 310-201-9150 Toll-Free: 888-773-9224 E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com On June 8, 2020, the investment analyst OSS Research issued a report on Tactile Medical entitled "Strong Sell On Tactile Systems (TCMD): Bloated Stock Needs Compression Therapy." The OSS Research report claimed that "the true source of Tactile's growth" is "a kick-back scheme that has resulted in rampant overprescribing." The OSS Research report also alleged that "Medicare has recently launched an industry-wide audit in which Tactile has been disproportionately targeted. 70% of Tactile's claims audited so far have been retroactively denied." On this news, the Company's share price fell $5.28 per share, or over 10%, to close at $47.26 per share on June 8, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Tactile should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. [GN] TAP HOUSE: Morales Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Isaac Morales, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TAP HOUSE LLC (D/B/A TAP HAUS 33), LEE SIMON, JEFF DOE, and JOEL DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04511 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants without appropriate minimum wage and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked, according to the complaint. Rather, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Morales appropriately for any hours worked either at the straight rate of pay. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Morales the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Plaintiff, who was employed as a busboy at the Defendants' bar, also alleges that the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay him wages on a timely basis. He adds that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating his and other tipped employees' tips and made unlawful deductions from the Plaintiff's and other tipped employees' wages. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Sports Bar, located in New York City under the name "Tap Haus 33."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 TIKTOK INC: Faces C.H. BIPA Suit Over Collection of Biometrics -------------------------------------------------------------- C.H., a minor, by and through his Guardian, Marc Halpin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIKTOK, INC., a corporation, and BYTEDANCE, INC., a corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-05036 (C.D. Cal., June 5, 2020), alleges that the Defendants' collection, storage and use of biometric identifiers or biometric information is in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff contends that unknown and undisclosed to its users, the TikTok App collects, stores and uses private, biometric information and biometric identifiers of users and those whose faces appear in users' videos. The App scans a user's facial geometry and its algorithm subsequently uses that information to determine an estimate of the user's age. The App also scans facial geometry of any subject that appears in a video to allow users to impose animated features onto the video subject's face or otherwise alter the video subject's face. TikTok encourages users to use these facial effects, says the complaint. TikTok maintains and operates one of the fastest growing social media applications in the United States. The App is a video-sharing network that allows users to create, view, and share short videos.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Sklaver, Esq. Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq. Michael Gervais, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com mgervais@susmangodfrey.com TOWNSQUARE MEDIA: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, on June 10 disclosed that it has commenced an investigation on behalf of Townsquare Media, Inc. ("Townsquare Media" or the "Company") (NYSE: TSQ) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws. If you suffered a loss on your Townsquare Media 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/townsquare-media-inc/.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 9, 2020, Townsquare Media disclosed that it would report an impairment charge of approximately $39.4 million for its licenses and an impairment charge of approximately $69.0 million for its goodwill. The Company also announced that certain financial statements for fiscal years 2017, 2018 and 2019 should no longer be relied upon and would be restated due to an error "in the projected cash flows that were utilized in [its] valuation model." On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.20, or nearly 19%, to close at $5.28 per share on June 9, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Townsquare Media should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. About GPM Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] TOWNSQUARE MEDIA: Portnoy Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Townsquare Media, Inc. (NYSE: TSQ) investors that the firm has initiated an investigation into alleged violations of securities laws, and may file a lawsuit on behalf of investors to recover losses suffered by investors. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, including eligibility for appointment as a class representative. The investigation focuses on whether Townsquare Media misled investors regarding its compliance with proper accounting practices. On June 9, 2020, Townsquare Media disclosed that it would report an impairment charge of approximately $39.4 million for its licenses and an impairment charge of approximately $69.0 million for its goodwill. The Company also announced that certain financial statements for fiscal years 2017, 2018 and 2019 should no longer be relied upon and would be restated due to an error "in the projected cash flows that were utilized in [its] valuation model." On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.20, or nearly 19%, to close at $5.28 per share on June 9, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm -- http://www.portnoylaw.com-- represents investors from around the world and specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights litigation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued by Marques Over Fuel Pump Defect in Vehicles --------------------------------------------------------------- Isabel Marques, Payam Rastegar, and Syed Abdul Nafay, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00665 (E.D. Va., June 12, 2020), alleges that the Defendants knew that the low-pressure fuel pumps in certain affected vehicles contained a defect that causes systemic fuel system failures. Toyota has sold and marketed the Affected Vehicles with defective low-pressure fuel pumps that cause unpredictable acceleration and engine stalls and render the Affected Vehicles unsafe to operate, the Plaintiffs allege. The Affected Vehicles include at least these Toyota and Lexus models: 2018–2019 Toyota Avalon; 2018–2019 Toyota Camry; 2018–2019 Toyota Corolla; 2014 Toyota FJ Cruiser; 2018–2019 Toyota Highlander; 2014–2015, 2018–2019 Toyota Land Cruiser; 2018–2019 Toyota Sequoia; 2018–2019 Toyota Sienna; 2018–2019 Toyota Tacoma; 2018–2019 Toyota Tundra; 2014–2015, 2018–2019 Toyota Forerunner; 2018–2019 Lexus ES350; 2018–2019 Lexus GS300; 2013–2014, 2018–2019 Lexus GS350; 2014–2015 Lexus GX460; 2014 Lexus IS-F; 2017 Lexus IS200t; 2018–2019 Lexus IS300; 2014–2015, 2018–2019 Lexus IS350; 2018–2019 Lexus LC500; 2018–2019 Lexus LC500h; 2013–2015 Lexus LS460; 2018–2019 Lexus LS500; 2018–2019 Lexus LS500h 2014–2015 Lexus LX570; 2015 Lexus NX200t; 2018–2019 Lexus RC300; 2017 Lexus RC200t; 2015, 2018–2019 Lexus RC350; 2017–2019 Lexus RX350; 2018–2019 Lexus RX350. The Plaintiffs contend that 695,541 Toyota and Lexus vehicles are expressly covered by the 1-13-20 Recall Report, but the same dangerous condition is present in millions of Toyota and Lexus vehicles equipped with the low-pressure fuel pump with part number prefix 23220- or 23221-. The Plaintiffs assert that the Fuel Pump Defect endangers drivers, passengers, and other persons and property in the vicinity of an Affected Vehicle at any time that it is in motion. The Fuel Pump Defect, thus, renders the Affected Vehicles less safe and less valuable than consumers would reasonably expect and it makes them less safe and less valuable than the Affected Vehicles would be if Toyota did not design and sell the Affected Vehicles with the Fuel Pump Defect, the Plaintiffs insist. The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint to recover on behalf of the Class all relief to which they are entitled, including the recovery of the purchase price of their vehicles, compensation for overpayment and diminution in value of their vehicles, out-of-pocket and incidental expenses, and an injunction compelling Toyota to replace or recall and fix the Affected Vehicles. The Plaintiffs and each and every Class member have suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of Toyota's omissions and/or misrepresentations associated with the Affected Vehicles, including but not limited to out-of-pocket loss and diminished value of the Affected Vehicles, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased and/or still own the Affected Vehicle. Toyota manufactured, sold, and warranted the Affected Vehicles throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Brian E. Johnson, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com bejohnson@cohenmilstein.com - and – Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, DC 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com jerrodp@hbsslaw.com UKW HOLDING: Court Amends Caption of Colombo Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has entered an order amending the caption of the case, CHELSEA COLOMBO, on behalf of herself and the Class, Plaintiff, v. UKW HOLDING COMPANY, UKW FRANCHISING COMPANY, LLC, UKW DISTRIBUTION CENTER, LLC, WAX MANUFACTURING LLC, NYC WAXING, LLC, UPPER WESTSIDE WAXING, INC., UPPER EASTSIDE WAXING, LLC, BOWERY WAXING LLC, ABC CORPORATIONS 1-12, OZZIE GRUPENMAGER, NOEMI GRUPENMAGER, JOHN MARJI, and CLIFF MARJI Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-11015-JMF (S.D. N.Y.). Plaintiff Chelsea Colombo, on behalf of herself and the class, commenced the above captioned action against the Defendants on Sept. 27, 2019, alleging violations of New York Labor Law. On Feb. 26, 2020, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims in the action without prejudice as to the following Defendants: UKW Holding, UKW Franchising, UKW Distribution, Wax Manufacturing, NYC Waxing, Upper Westside, Upper Eastside, Bowery Waxing, ABC Corporations 2-12, Ozzie Grupenmager, and Noemi Grupenmager. Defendants ABC Corp. 1, John Marhi and Cliff Marji are the only remaining Defendants. ABC Corp. 1 has now been identified as Green Wax Center, Inc., doing business as Uni K Wax Studio. No answer or other responsive pleading has been filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 in the action regarding the remaining Defendants. Judge Furman ordered that the new caption will be as follows: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHELSEA COLOMBO on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 1:19-CV-11015-JMF GREEN WAX CENTER, INC. d/b/a UNI K WAX STUDIO, JOHN MARJI and CLIFF MARJI, Defendants. Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 9, 2020 /s/ C.K. Lee C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC C.K. Lee (CL 4086) Anne Seelig (AS 3976) 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Tel.: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 10, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/4Kn3v8 from Leagle.com. Chelsea Columbo, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, represented by C.K. Lee -- info@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & Anne Melissa Seelig, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC. UNIFIED LIFE: Court Severs Third-Party Complaint in Butler Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHARLES M. BUTLER, III and CHOLE BUTLER, Plaintiffs, v. UNIFIED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; HEALTH PLANS INTERMEDIARIES HOLDINGS, LLC, doing business as Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.; ALLIED NATIONAL, INC.; NATIONAL BROKERS OF AMERICA, INC.; THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF EMPLOYERS, INC.; and DOES 1-10 Defendants. UNIFIED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND ALLIED NATIONAL, INC., Crossclaimants and Third-Party Claimants, v. HEALTH PLANS INTERMEDIARIES HOLDINGS, LLC, DOING BUSINESS AS HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS; HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC. Crossclaim Defendants, And NATIONAL BROKERS OF AMERICA, INC., Crossclaim Defendant, And MULTIPLAN, INC., Third-Party Defendant, Case No. CV-17-50-BLG-SPW (D. Mont.), Judge Susan P. Waters of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion to sever a third-party complaint. The Plaintiffs were previously granted leave to file a third amended complaint to allege a class action against Unified Life. The class action alleges that Unified Life breached its insurance contracts with the class by systematically paying benefits at less than the amount provided in the contracts. Fourteen days after the third amended complaint was filed, Unified Life filed its answer, including a third-party complaint against Multiplan, Inc., alleging Multiplan negligently performed under its contract, breached the contract, and owed a duty to indemnify Unified for the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs. The Court subsequently certified the class and summary judgment was entered in the class' favor on liability. The Plaintiffs filed the present motion to sever Unified's third-party complaint against Multiplan from the Plaintiffs' and the class' claims. The parties dispute whether Unified needed leave of Court before filing its third-party complaint. The Plaintiffs argue "original answer" means literally Unified's first answer. Unified argues "original answer" means the answer it was entitled to file in response to the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint. Upon consideration, the Court determines that severing the third-party complaint will promote judicial economy, avoid confusion, avoid possible delays of the underlying trial, and permit separate discovery plans to exist independent of each other. Although not styled as such, the third-party complaint is essentially a declaratory judgment action because Unified seeks an Order from the Court directing Multiplan to indemnify and defend Unified. There is limited overlap between the third-party complaint and the Main Case, other than that the damages Unified seeks from Multiplan are the damages Unified may be found to owe, if any, to the Plaintiffs and the class. The fact the Court has already found Multiplan's pricing methodology was not in conformance with Unified's insurance contracts with Unified's insureds does not mean Multiplan's pricing methodology was a breach of the contract between Unified and Multiplan. That will depend on the language of the contract between Unified and Multiplan, which is an entirely separate issue from the Plaintiffs' and the class's claims in the Main Case. Add in the complications that will inevitably arise from the parties attempting to weigh in on each other's case, despite not being a real party to that case, and the Court cannot see any real benefit to trying the Main Case and the third-party complaint together. The posture of the case also counsels in favor of bifurcation, the Court cites. The third-party complaint entitles Unified and Multiplan to discovery from each other, but there's no reason that discovery should affect or delay the Main Case. Already, the need for discovery between Unified and Multiplan has bled over into the Main Case, with Unified and Multiplan jointly arguing for a substantially longer class action management order, despite Multiplan not actually being a defendant in the class action. The Plaintiffs and Unified should be free to confer about the Main Case without Multiplan's input, and Unified and Multiplan should be free to confer about the third-party complaint without the Plaintiffs' input. Furthermore, there is a very real likelihood the third-party complaint will be settled on summary judgment because it depends on contract language, a question of law. Given that damages for the third-party complaint will be determined by the Main Case, the third-party complaint might therefore be mostly decided with a straightforward discovery plan and dispositive motions deadline. The Court can see no real prejudice to either Unified or Multiplan with that procedure. Complete severance will allow the cases to proceed independent of each other in the most efficient manner appropriate according to the demands of each case without interference by one into the other, the Court determines. Based on the foregoing, Judge Waters granted the Plaintiffs' motion to sever the third-party complaint. The third-party complaint is severed from the Main case, the Court orders. All filings in the Main case should omit the third-party Plaintiff and the third-party Defendant from the caption heading. All filings in the third-party case should omit the Main case parties from the caption heading. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 10, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/d05YX3 from Leagle.com. Charles M. Butler, III & Chole Butler, Plaintiffs, represented by John M. Morrison -- john@mswdlaw.com -- MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP & Scott L. Peterson -- speterson@mswdlaw.com -- MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP. Unified Life Insurance Company & Allied National, Inc, Defendants, represented by Robert L. Sterup -- rsterup@brownfirm.com -- BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. Health Plans Intermediaries Holdings, LLC., doing business as Health Insurance Innovations & Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Defendants, represented by Monique P. Voigt -- mvoigt@crowleyfleck.com -- CROWLEY FLECK PLLP. The National Congress of Employers, Inc, Defendant, represented by Katherine Huso, MATOVICH, KELLER & HUSO, P.C. UNITED HEALTHCARE: Averts Wilderness Therapy Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a lawsuit accusing United Healthcare Insurance Co. of wrongly failing to cover wilderness therapy programs for troubled teens won't move forward as a class action, a federal judge in Utah ruled. The United policy being challenged wasn't applied uniformly to all members of the proposed class, Judge David Nuffer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah held on June 9. And the various programs the proposed class members attended, along with their medical conditions, vary too widely to allow the case to be resolved on a class basis, Nuffer said. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Placko Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Placko, Cindy Placko, and Joshua Placko, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-03451 (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion, with regard to a refund on tuition. The Plaintiffs and the putative Class members contracted with the Defendants for certain services and paid for those services in the form of tuition, room and board, and other fees. As a result of limitations the Defendants have imposed in response to the CoVID-19 pandemic, the Defendants have not delivered the services that the Plaintiffs and the putative Class contracted and paid for, the Plaintiffs assert. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs allege, the Defendants were unjustly enriched based upon monies received from the Plaintiffs and putative Class members. Alternatively, the Defendants converted property belonging to the Plaintiffs and putative Class members. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the putative Class are entitled to a refund on tuition, room and board, and fees paid for services, facilities, access and/or opportunities not delivered, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Joshua Placko is a student at The University of Illinois, who attend the Defendants' institution during the Spring 2020 semester. Plaintiffs Richard Placko and Cindy Placko are the parents of Plaintiff Joshua Placko. University of Illinois is a public university with multiple campuses located in the state of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle Shamberg, Esq. Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 750-1265 Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com nlange@carlsonlynch.com - and - Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. James P. McGraw, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: eciolko@carlsonlynch.com jmcgraw@carlsonlynch.com - and - Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. Robert J. Schupler, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0380 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com rschupler@gme-law.com UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA: Ballas Seeks Tuition Refund Due to COVID-19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- KELSIE BALLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. STATE OF NEVADA ex. rel. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION ON BEHALF OF THE COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, GREAT BASIN COLLEGE, TRUCKEE MEADOWS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA - LAS VEGAS, UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA - RENO, and WESTERN NEVADA COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. CV20-00922 (Nev. Dist., 2nd Judicial, Washoe Cty., June 17, 2020) arises after the Defendant decided to close campuses, required students to vacate their on-campus housing, and transitioned all classes to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease ("COVID-19") while refusing to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs that Defendant failed to provide, or has provided inadequate and/or arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate Plaintiff and members of the Classes for their losses. According to the complaint, Defendant has an estimated total system endowment of approximately $447 Million. Defendant is eligible to receive federal stimulus under the CARES Act. The CARES Act directs that approximately $14 billion be distributed to colleges and universities based upon enrollment and requires that institutions must use at least half of the funds they receive to provide emergency financial aid grants to students for expenses related to the disruption of campus operations due to COVID-19. Defendant was woefully ill-prepared to transition to online instruction and was unable to provide its students with the same level of education and experiences as such students bargained for and would have received on campus, making it unfair and unlawful for Defendant to retain the full amount of tuition such students had already prepaid. Plaintiff is not suing to recover monies paid by taxes to the University or monies from the State coffers; rather, Plaintiff files suit against the Nevada System of Higher Education, a corporate body that may be sued, for specific disgorgement of fees and monies paid by students and their parents, guardians, and families for services not received. State of Nevada ex. rel Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education on behalf of the College of Southern Nevada, Great Basin College, Truckee Meadows Community College, University of Nevada - Las Vegas, University of Nevada - Reno, Western Nevada College, is an agency of the State of Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Sharp, Esq. MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD. 432 Ridge Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 324-1500 E-mail: matt@mattsharplaw.com - and - Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com USA TAEKWONDO: Gilbert Allowed to File 3rd Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, HEIDI GILBERT, AMBER MEANS, MANDY MELOON, GABRIELA JOSLIN, KAY POE, Plaintiffs, v. USA TAEKWONDO, INC., STEVEN LOPEZ, Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-cv-00981-CMA-MEH, (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted Plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint. Plaintiffs initiated the action in April 2018 and subsequently amended the complaint twice. Plaintiffs generally allege that the Defendants inflicted on them and other American female taekwondo athletes forced labor and services, sex trafficking, and other travesties. The current motion seeks to have the complaint in the action reflect (1) the prior changes in parties, (2) the effect of Judge Arguello's Order concerning the dismissal of certain claims, (3) Plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of Defendant Jean Lopez, (4) Plaintiffs' abandonment of class allegations, and (5) Plaintiffs' re-pleading of the negligence claim (dismissed without prejudice by Judge Arguello's Order) against Defendant USA Taekwondo, Inc. (USAT) brought by four Plaintiffs (all except Kay Poe) (i.e., four separate negligence claims, new proposed Counts 9-12). USAT argues that the new claims in the proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC) would be futile and subject to dismissal. Plaintiffs respond that the proposed TAC contains allegations that make clear that the duty element of Plaintiffs' negligence claim against USAT is based on USAT's voluntary assumption of a duty for each Plaintiff, and not based on Plaintiffs' membership status. The Court believes that the theories of voluntary assumption of duty (which will not be barred as a matter of law on any future motion testing the proposed TAC) and special relationship are sufficiently substantial and tied to the proposed TAC's factual allegations to survive USAT's futility argument. The Court here do not intend to state that the four negligence claims would of certainty survive a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, but only that the standard for amending the complaint has been met. All that said, the Court encourages Plaintiffs to carefully consider the criticisms of specific factual allegations made by Defendant USAT and to edit the proposed TAC for purposes of eliminating easily remediable deficiencies that would likely be raised in a dispositive motion by USAT. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 30, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/slmng7p from Leagle.com Heidi Gilbert, Amber Means, Mandy Meloon & Gabriela Joslin, Plaintiffs, represented by Karen Mor Hen - karen@parkerlipman.com - Parker Lipman, LLP, Larkin Evans Walsh - lwalsh@midwest-law.com - Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Lauren Cerri - lcerri@cmalaw.net - Corsiglia, McMahon & Allard, LLP, Mark John Boskovich - mboskovich@cmalaw.net - Corsiglia, McMahon & Allard, LLP, Rex A. Sharp , Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Robert Allard - rallard@cmalaw.net - Corsiglia, McMahon & Allard, LLP, Ryan Carleton Hudson -rhudson@midwest-law.com - Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Sarah Tankard Bradshaw - sbradshaw@midwest-law.com - Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Stephen J. Estey , Estey & Bomberger, LLP 2869 India Street, San Diego, CA, 92103 & Daniel A. Lipman - dan@parkerlipman.com - Parker Lipman, LLP. Kay Poe, and Jane Does 6-50, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Mor Hen , Parker Lipman, LLP, Larkin Evans Walsh , Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Mark John Boskovich , Corsiglia, McMahon & Allard, LLP, Sarah Tankard Bradshaw , Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Stephen J. Estey , Estey & Bomberger, LLP & Rex A. Sharp , Rex A. Sharp, P.A. USA Taekwondo, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lillian L. Alves - lalves@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Nathan Andrew Huey - nhuey@grsm.com - Gordon & Rees LLP & Thomas Baker Quinn - tquinn@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. Steven Lopez & Jean Lopez, and John Does 1-5, Defendants, represented by Howard Lee Jacobs - howard.jacobs@athleteslawyer.com - Law Offices of, Howard L. Jacobs, - jam@bhgrlaw.com - Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP, Kathleen Teresa Alt - kta@bhgrlaw.com - Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP, Lauren Amy Brock - lauren.brock@athleteslawyer.com - Law Offices of, Howard L. Jacobs & Lindsay Scott Brandon -lindsay.brandon@athleteslawyer.com - Law Offices of, Howard L. Jacobs. USPACK SERVICES: Kendus Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARK KENDUS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. USPACK SERVICES LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. SAG-19-00496 (D. Md.), Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted the Defendants' Motion to Transfer Case to the Middle District of Florida. Mark Kendus and Keith Kendus filed the Complaint on behalf of a putative class of couriers, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Maryland's Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), and Maryland's Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPC"). US Pack Med, LLC and USPack Services, LLC move for the matter to be transferred to the Middle District of Florida, pursuant to the First-Filed rule, because a similar case was filed in that district prior to the start of the litigation. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition, and the Defendants filed a reply. USPack provides courier services throughout the United States, including in Maryland. Pack Med is a subsidiary of USPack, and previously operated under the name "Medifleet, LLC." The drivers for the Defendants pick up blood and other samples from local doctors' offices, and deliver them to hospitals and laboratories throughout Maryland. The Plaintiffs began working for USPack as medical delivery drivers in January 2011, and ended their employment in January 2018. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawfully failed to pay overtime wages, because the Plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors. They filed a Complaint on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated employees, alleging that the Defendants violated the FLSA, MWPC, and MWHL. The Complaint in the Court was filed on Feb. 20, 2019. Approximately one month prior to the filing of the Complaint in the action, Curtis Hamrick filed a Complaint in the Middle District of Florida, on behalf of a putative class of USPack drivers. Hamrick alleged that the Defendants in that action, similarly, misclassified "drivers/couriers" as independent contractors, and denied them requisite overtime wages. While Hamrick named Pack Med and USPack as the Defendants in that action, he also named several Florida subsidiaries. The Hamrick Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, which Judge Wendy W. Berger denied. Since the Hamrick Defendants have sought an interlocutory appeal of Judge Berger's Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the case is presently stayed. On Oct. 15, 2019, the Court advised counsel that it would defer ruling on the Motion to Transfer. Because the Defendants indicated that they intended to file a Motion to Compel Arbitration, but had not yet done so, the Court determined that it would defer assessing the applicability of the First-Filed rule until after the Motion to Compel was briefed. The Court could then determine whether the issues in the litigation are sufficiently similar to issues in the Hamrick litigation, such that transfer of the case would be warranted. The Defendants filed their Motion to Compel Arbitration on Nov. 1, 2019. Three factors guide the Court's analysis of the First-Filed rule: (1) the chronology of the filings, (2) the similarity of the parties involved, and (3) the similarity of the issues at stake. However, the rule is generally subject to equitable exceptions, including a consideration of whether the balance of convenience weighs in favor of the second-filed court's continued exercise of jurisdiction over the second-filed suit. The First-Filed rule is an important doctrine that is illustrative of the applicability of the principle of comity. In the case, all three factors weigh in favor of transfer to the Middle District of Florida. Considering factor one, it is uncontested that the Hamrick litigation started before the present action. Hamrick filed his Complaint on January 22, 2019, whereas the Plaintiffs filed in the Court on Feb. 20, 2019. Thus, the chronology of events favors application of the First-Filed rule. Next, every party in the case is either a party in the Hamrick litigation, or included in that case's proposed class definition. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that Pack Med and USPack are the Defendants in both the action and in the Hamrick case. Also, Hamrick named several of USPack's Florida subsidiaries as the Defendants, along with USPack and Pack Med. But the Plaintiffs have not articulated any reason that the inclusion of other subsidiaries would prevent the Florida Court from adjudicating issues with respect to USPack and Pack Med. Accordingly, the substantial overlap between the parties in the case and in the Hamrick litigation weighs in favor of transfer to the Middle District of Florida. Although the Plaintiffs contended in their opposition that it was unknown whether or not enough similarity exists between the classes of the Plaintiffs in the case and Hamrick, more information has now revealed that the substantive issues are similar. Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that the traditional factors counsel against transfer. In Gibbs v. Haynes Invests., LLC, the Court found that there were legitimate concerns about personal jurisdiction to proceed in the earlier-filed court. Additionally, not only were all of the witnesses located in Virginia, but there were also several other "closely related" actions pending in the second-filed court. The Jduge holds that the instant case does not involve those unique circumstances. While the Plaintiffs' choice of venue is entitled to substantial weight, it does not outweigh interests of comity, or the potential for conflicting judgments on remarkably similar issues. For the reasons set forth, Judge Gallagher granted the Defendants' Motion to Transfer. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 10, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/8EWScq from Leagle.com. Mark Kendus & Keith Kendus, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Harold L. Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan PC, pro hac vice, Zachary Rubin -- zrubin@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan PC, pro hac vice & Michelle Cassorla -- mcassorla@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN P.C. USPack Services LLC & US Pack Med LLC, Defendants, represented by Andrew Mark Baskin -- Andrew.Baskin@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Brooks R. Amiot -- Brooks.Amiot@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Eric R. Magnus -- Eric.Magnus@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice. VIMEO INC: Court Denies Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- Peter J. Wozniak, Esq., and Mark Wallin, Esq., of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that an Illinois federal court recently denied a motion to compel individual arbitration of a class action alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). In Acaley v. Vimeo Inc., the plaintiff brought a putative BIPA class action against the maker of user-created video software, alleging the defendant "violated BIPA by using facial recognition technology to scan, collect, and store his and other users' face geometries from videos and photographs they uploaded to [the defendant's website/app] without satisfying [BIPA's] requirements." The defendant sought to stay the lawsuit and to compel individual arbitration of the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff resisted the defendant's motion, contending both that no agreement to arbitrate was formed, and that the BIPA suit was beyond the arbitration agreement's scope, because it was excluded as one of the specific exceptions to the agreement. The district court disagreed with the former, but agreed with the latter, and denied the motion to compel arbitration. Arbitration Agreement Formation The parties disputed whether a binding arbitration agreement had been made at all. As the court explained, "arbitration is a matter of contract." The parties agreed that the defendant's terms of service included an arbitration clause, but disputed whether the plaintiff had assented to the terms of service. After a "fact-intensive inquiry," the court found that the plaintiff "received reasonable notice on at least two occasions" that he was consenting to the terms of service, and specifically noted that reasonable notice of an agreement can be given "even if [the website] does not provide an affirmative statement giving such notice on every page." Scope of Arbitration Agreement As the court explained, "any doubt concerning the scope of the arbitration clause is resolved in favor of arbitration," and arbitration should be compelled "unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute." At issue was the "Exceptions to Arbitration" clause, which exempted from arbitration, among other claims, "any Claim related to, or arising from, allegations of theft, piracy, invasion of privacy or unauthorized use." The court explained (and the defendant did not contest) that "BIPA claims generally relate to or arise from invasion of privacy." The court also noted "[f]ederal district courts, including this Court, also have described the Illinois legislature as creating a 'legal right to privacy' in BIPA and have characterized lawsuits brought under BIPA as '[i]nvasion of privacy lawsuits.'" The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the exclusion only applied to "common-law tort claims of invasion of privacy, not other sorts of invasion-of-privacy claims," stating that "this argument falls flat." Regarding the defendant's inventive argument that "the phrase 'invasion of privacy'" must be narrowly interpreted because the word "'invasion' bespeaks an aggressive, even extreme act that far exceeds mere non-compliance with regulatory law," the court explained that the Illinois Supreme Court has "used the word 'invasion' to describe BIPA violations." Ultimately, the court concluded that the terms of service "are not susceptible of a reading" that the arbitration agreement covered the BIPA claim. The wave of BIPA class actions shows no sign of abating, and Illinois naturally remains the epicenter of these cases. Arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers can be a useful tool for defeating BIPA class actions. However, the Vimeo case serves as a reminder that at its core, BIPA is a privacy statute. In tandem with ensuring that BIPA-compliant policies and practices are in place, careful attention must be paid to the terms of any arbitration agreement, to be sure those arbitration agreements achieve their intended goals. This court's decision also lends support to the argument that BIPA claims are subject to Illinois' one-year limitation period for privacy causes of action. [GN] VIRGINIA: Faces Winks Suit Alleging Discrimination Due to Gender ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bridget Amanda Winks, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-00420-HEH (E.D. Va., June 11, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant restrains payment of wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex. The Plaintiff wants to collect back wages due to employees as a result of the Defendant's unlawful payment scheme. When the Commonwealth came to understand in 2019 that the long-standing policy of using pay history to determine a new hire's salary was a biased policy, nothing was done to address the inequity endured by veteran women at the Department of Transportation, according to the complaint. Wage inequality affects the pay of women employed as Environmental Architects and Civil Engineers. The Defendant has violated the FLSA, by paying Winks and the other members of the Class lower wages than those paid to their male colleagues for performing equal work as Architect/Engineer I, all being classified full-time employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Winks worked for the Commonwealth's Department of Environmental Quality for more than 3 years. Her career at the Virginia Department of Transportation commenced January 25, 2018. The Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated female employees ask the Court to enjoin unlawful compensation discrimination and order wages equal to those paid to their male counterparts for performing equal work. VDOT has primary responsibility for transportation services, including highways, bridges, and air traffic for the Commonwealth of Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sydney E. Rab, Esq. THE RAB LAW FIRM 5407 Langdon Drive Richmond, VA 23225 Phone: 804-822-8981 Email: Msydrab@comcast.net - and – Tim Schulte, Esq. Blackwell N. Shelley, Jr., Esq. SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, P.C. 2020 Monument Avenue, First Floor Richmond VA 23220 Phone: (804) 644-9700 Fax: (804) 278-9634 Email: schulte@scs-work.com shelley@scs-work.com - and – Timothy E. Cupp, Esq. SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, P.C. 1951 Evelyn Byrd Avenue, Suite D Harrisonburg, VA 22803 Phone: (540) 432-9988 Fax: (804) 278-9634 Email: Cupp@scs-work.com VITAMIN WIZARDS: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Text Ads --------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VITAMIN WIZARDS and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05394 (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a series of unsolicited text messages, which are spam advertisements and/or promotional offers, from Defendants on his cellular telephone number ending in -2775 in or about January 2020. Plaintiff asserts that he never provided his cellular telephone number to Defendants for any reason whatsoever, and never prior express consent to receive such text messages from Defendants. Vitamin Wizards offers information related to health and fitness via text messaging. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com WALGREEN CO: Underpays Call Center Agents, Olazagasti Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- LEYLA MARIE CORTES OLAZAGASTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03338 (N.D. Ill., June 5, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Olazagasti was employed by the Defendant as call center agent. Walgreen Company provides online medical products. The Company sells prescription refills, health info, contact lenses, and other products. Walgreen serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. Megan E. Shannon, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com mshannon@stephanzouras.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com WELLS FARGO: Bam Navigation Sues over COVID-19 Loan Assistance -------------------------------------------------------------- BAM NAVIGATION, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & CO.; and WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-01345 (D. Minn., June 11, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' unlawful conduct in connection with the Federal Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"). The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the Defendants made false, misleading and deceptive material statements and omissions to the Plaintiff and other small business owners who were in need of financial relief and assistance as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic that has wreaked havoc on the global economy. The Defendants, in violation of the Federal regulations governing PPP loan applications requiring that applications be processed on a first-come, first-served basis, processed PPP loan applications in a manner which prioritized applications for larger loan amounts over applications for smaller loan amounts and that prioritized applications from businesses with a pre-existing lending relationship with the Defendants without regard to the order in which they were submitted to the Defendants, inconsistent with applicable regulations. The Defendants' wrongdoing caused substantial injury to small businesses, including the Plaintiff and Class members, who were unable to benefit from the PPP loan funds as a result of the Defendants' conduct. Wells Fargo & Company is a diversified financial services company providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, leasing, credit cards, and consumer finance. The Company operates through physical stores, the internet, and other distribution channels worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Mickey L. Stevens, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 E-mail: Telephone: (612) 333-8844 dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com mstevens@gustafsongluek.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Bethany R. Turke, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com brt@wexlerwallace.com - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19013 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 E-mail: Sparis@smbb.com Phoward@smbb.com WELLS FARGO: Howard G. Smith Announces Filing of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) securities between April 5, 2020 and May 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Wells Fargo investors have until August 3, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their Wells Fargo investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On April 19, 2020, after at least one lawsuit was filed against the Company, reports surfaced that Wells Fargo may have unfairly distributed government-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"). On this news the Company's share price fell $1.54, or over 5%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $26.84 per share on April 21, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Finally, on May 5, 2020, the Company revealed that "it has . . . 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 fell $1.74, or over 6%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $25.61 per share on May 6, 2020, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that 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; (2) that 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 (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased Wells Fargo securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Howard G. Smith, Esquire Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Toll-free: (888) 638-4847 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ [GN] WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 3 Motion Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 11 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY) BBBY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 2, 2019 - February 11, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bed-bath-beyond-inc-loss-form?prid=7292&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) due to "aggressive disposition of inventory," the Company lacked sufficient inventory in key categories to support holiday sales; (2) the Company's internal control over inventory levels and financial reporting was not effective; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was likely to experience reduced sales; and (4) 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. Baidu, Inc. (BIDU) BIDU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 16, 2019 - April 7, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 22, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form?prid=7292&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Baidu, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Baidu's feed services were not in compliance with applicable Chinese regulatory standards; (ii) the foregoing noncompliance subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory enforcement, including the removal or suspension of certain of Baidu's services and products; (iii) accordingly, the Company's revenues derived from online marketing services were unlikely to be sustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) WFC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 5, 2020 - May 5, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 3, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form?prid=7292&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wells Fargo & Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly allocate government-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection Program ("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. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] WHOLE FOODS: D.C. App. Upholds Denial of Dismissal Motion in Molock ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL MOLOCK, ET AL., Appellees, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Appellant, Case No. 18-7162 (D.C. App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Whole Foods' motion to dismiss the non-resident putative class members, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Whole Foods, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Texas, allegedly manipulated its incentive-based bonus program, resulting in employees losing wages otherwise owed to them. Current and former Whole Foods employees initiated the diversity action in the District Court for the District of Columbia to recover the purportedly lost wages. The Employees brought various state law claims and sought to represent a putative class of past and present employees of Whole Foods. Whole Foods moved to dismiss on several grounds, only one of which is relevant in the case: it argued that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the non-resident putative class members. The district court denied the motion and certified its order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Whole Foods then filed a petition for leave to appeal, which the Court granted. The Appellate Court reviews the district court's denial of Whole Foods' motion to dismiss de novo. In the Appellate Court and in the district court, the parties debate an issue left unresolved by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California. There, a group of 600 plaintiffs brought a mass tort action in California state court against the pharmaceutical firm Bristol-Myers Squibb. All the plaintiffs asserted California state law claims, but only 86 were California residents; the rest resided elsewhere. The firm moved to quash service of summons on the non-residents' claims, arguing that the California court lacked specific jurisdiction to hear those claims. The Supreme Court agreed. Applying that standard, the Supreme Court found that the non-residents' claims lacked an "adequate link" with California to justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction. Whole Foods argues that because the district court is sitting in diversity, its personal jurisdiction is conterminous with that of a District of Columbia court. The Employees take a different view. Acknowledging that a federal court sitting in diversity typically exercises personal jurisdiction conterminously with that of the state in which it sits, they argue that class actions present an exception to this general rule. In the alternative, they argue that the district court should have denied Whole Foods' motion to dismiss, not on the merits, but on the ground that it was premature because prior to class certification putative class members are not parties to the action. On this point, the Appellate Court agrees. Although unconventionally framed, Whole Foods' papers are best read as moving to dismiss the nonresident putative class members' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, not as challenging the Employees' right to represent those claims consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; indeed, Whole Foods' motion to dismiss never even cites Rule 23. Such a reading is bolstered by the fact that elsewhere in its motion Whole Foods moved to dismiss "the claims of purported absent class members" on other grounds, i.e., lack of standing. But any ambiguity over Whole Foods' position before the district court is resolved by the fact that, before the Court, Whole Foods expressly states that it "moved to dismiss claims asserted on behalf of nonresident putative-class members because there were no facts to support personal jurisdiction as to those nonresidents' claims." Maintaining that position on appeal, Whole Foods insists that the claims of all the unnamed putative class members whose claims are unrelated to Whole Foods' operations in the District of Columbia should be dismissed. The Appellate Court takes Whole Foods at its word that it sought, and continues to seek, dismissal of the non-resident putative class members' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons given, the Appellate Court affirmed the district court's denial of Whole Foods' motion to dismiss the non-resident putative class members, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's March 10, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/nskM20 from Leagle.com. MICHAEL MOLOCK & RANDAL KUCZOR, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher J. Regan -- cregan@reganfirm.com -- REGAN ZAMBRI & LONG, PLLC & Salvatore J. Zambri -- szambri@reganfirm.com -- REGAN ZAMBRI & LONG, PLLC. CARL BOWENS, JON PACE, SARAH STRICKLAND, JOSE FUENTES & CHRISTOPHER MILNER, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher J. Regan , REGAN ZAMBRI & LONG, PLLC. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Casas -- casasg@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP & David E. Sellinger -- sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Casas , GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, David E. Sellinger , GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP & John H. Hempfling, II , WHOLE FOODS MARKET CENTRAL OFFICE, pro hac vice. WHOLE FOODS: Faces Hughley Suit Over Untimely Payment of Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- EBONY HUGHLEY, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04309 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2020), asserts claim for untimely payment of wages under New York Labor Law. Ebony Hughley worked for the Defendant as a team member in the produce department at its store located at 226 E. 57th Street, in New York City. Whole Foods describes itself as an American multinational supermarket chain headquartered in Austin, Texas. Whole Foods exclusively sells products free from hydrogenated fats and ratification colors, flavors and preservatives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Sara Isaacson, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: 212 392 4772 Facsimile: 212 444 1030 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com sara@lipskylowe.com [*] Class Action Lawsuits Related to COVID-19 Pandemic Pile Up -------------------------------------------------------------- William R. Klein, Esq. -- bill.klein@sfnr.com -- of Schoenberg Finkel Newman & Rosenberg LLC, in an article for Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, reports that the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically disrupted all businesses, employers and government entities. Indeed, virtually the entire global economy has been affected. Shutdowns, the need for social distancing and efforts to contain the spread of the virus has led to the closing of businesses and the cancellations of services and events. Such disruption has led to a tsunami of class actions lawsuits directly related to the pandemic with more on their way. To date, the filed class actions fall into a variety of categories: (a) consumer protection (b) educational institutions (c) failure to protect consumers or employees from the virus (d) business disruption insurance (d) other employment issues (e) securities and (f) government-related claims. Each will be considered below. Consumer protection 1.Failure to refund Not surprisingly, there have been a host of consumer class actions filed against various businesses. Many of these suits have targeted businesses that have not refunded prepaid fees despite COVID-19-related cancellations and postponements. Consumers have filed class actions attacking the refund policies of many businesses, generally demanding monetary refunds rather than credits or rain checks. Class actions have been filed against virtually all major and some minor airlines in connection with refunds for cancellations of flights. Defendants in these suits include American Airlines, United Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Delta Airlines, Spirit Airlines, Frontier Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, Norwegian Air Shuttle and Concesionaria Vuela Compania de Aviacion. Major ticketing services StubHub, Ticketmaster, SeatGeek and Vivid Seats have also been targeted for allegedly changing refund policies after the pandemic caused events to be cancelled or postponed. Similarly, consumers have filed class-action lawsuits against Major League Baseball, Six Flags, Vail ski resorts, TurnKey Vacation Rentals, music festivals South by Southwest and Lightning in a Bottle, a single events club and a wildlife service for refunds of prepaid fees. 2.Continued collection of recurring fees Government shutdowns have closed most gyms, which typically charge recurring, monthly membership fees. Class actions seeking refunds of such fees during the shutdown have been filed against Boston Sports Clubs, Town Sports International, Washington Sports Clubs and Philadelphia Sports Clubs, LA Fitness, Blink Fitness and Fit Republic. 3.Consumer fraud and protection claims Consumers have already filed class actions against manufacturers and retailers under consumer protection statues, including: Actions against manufacturers and retailers of hand sanitizers, which implicitly advertised to prevent the coronavirus and other ailments despite FDA warnings that there is insufficient evidence to support such claims. The defendants sued to date include Target for its in-house brand, and the manufacturers of Purell and Germ-X. Class-action lawsuits have been filed against Whole Foods, Costco, Walmart, Trader Joe's and other grocers that have allegedly tripled the price of eggs since the coronavirus outbreak. The use of Zoom Video Communications has exploded during the pandemic. With that increased use has come increased scrutiny. Since March 30, at least 11 class actions have been filed against Zoom. These suits allege violations of consumer protection laws and federal securities laws. While not addressing COVID-19 directly, the suits relate to alleged issues with the privacy and security of the Zoom platform highlighted during the pandemic, including when the platform was hacked. One of these suits also names Facebook as a defendant for allegedly mining Zoom user data. Educational institutions The pandemic has closed most college campuses, forcing instruction online. Students, however, have been charged tuition, room, board and fees. Numerous student class actions have been filed for refunds, claiming that online courses are inferior to in-person classes. Among the undergraduate institutions already sued are Arizona, Arizona State, Northern Arizona, Drexel, Liberty, Miami, Northeastern, Purdue and University of Colorado Boulder. Failure to protect Appropriately seeking to shield employees from the virus itself presents difficult decisions for employers and businesses, which will only increase as states reopen. Class-action claims that employers and business have not adequately protected against the spread of the virus have already been filed, with many more expected. Such actions have, for example, been filed against cruise lines by both employees and passengers, and by the New York State Nurses Association alleging that the Montefiore Medical Center is not adequately protecting nurses. Business disruption insurance Businesses decimated by the COVID-19 pandemic have filed numerous federal and state class-action lawsuits against insurance companies for denial of business interruption claims. Many businesses purchased insurance to protect against business interruptions or disruptions outside of their control. These policies included business income coverage for losses due to necessary suspension of operations, allegedly including losses caused by viruses such as COVID-19, which led state and local governments to mandate widespread business closures. In most cases, business interruption coverage is triggered when the insured's claim results from "direct physical loss of or damage to" to the insured's property. Whether COVID-19 causes "direct physical loss of or damage to" a business will be the critical issue in these lawsuits. Insurers already sued include CNA, Lloyds of London, Liberty Mutual, Continental Casualty, Society Insurance, Owners Insurance, Topa Insurance, Oregon Mutual Insurance and Aspen American Insurance. Interestingly, certain state legislatures have taken up this cause and are in various stages of advancing bills that would require insurers to provide coverage for losses caused by the pandemic. Other employment issues Mass layoffs and other employment decisions due to the pandemic have led to class-action suits. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act helps ensure advance notice in cases of qualified plant closings and mass layoffs. Employees at Florida Hooters restaurants have already brought claims alleging the chain violated the WARN Act as a result of mass layoffs. The American Federation of Government Employees, a union for federal workers, has filed a class-action lawsuit against the federal government, alleging that workers should receive hazard pay for work done to manage the outbreak of COVID-19. Uber and Lyft face employment class actions involving COVID-19. Consistent with similar complaints against the companies, these actions allege Uber and Lyft misclassify drivers as independent contractors and therefore owe workers paid sick leave. The plaintiffs claim that the COVID-19 pandemic renders the failure to provide drivers with state-mandated sick leave particularly harmful. Securities claims The pandemic has affected the investment markets, which has led to class-action securities claims, which are only expected to increase. Norwegian Cruise Lines was sued on behalf of investors who claim that the cruise line made false statements in its February Security and Exchange Commission filings touting the company's strong financial performance, despite the coronavirus outbreak and the company's confidence in its preventive measures to reduce exposure and transmission of the virus. Investors also filed a class-action against Inovio Pharmaceutical, alleging they bought the company's stock at artificially inflated prices resulting from false statements that the company had developed a vaccine for COVID-19. Government-related claims At least three federal class actions have been filed against the People's Republic of China and Chinese governmental entities, seeking to recover damages for China's failure to contain the coronavirus outbreak and to notify the international community about its dangers. Class actions have also been filed against the United States government and lenders related to the Paycheck Protection Program. These actions allege that larger or existing customers were given preference over smaller or minority businesses in the administration of the government loan program. [GN] [*] Company Directors in Australia Want Total Ban on Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sally Patten, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that one third of listed company directors want a total ban on class actions, while nearly half are demanding a rethink of director liability settings, a survey has found. More than 50 per cent of listed company directors expect they will reduce staff levels over the next six months as the economy emerges from the height of the COVID-19 crisis, a study by the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) showed. Three quarters of listed company directors called on the government to introduce "pro-growth, pro-innovation" policies. Nearly 60 per cent wanted virtual annual shareholder meetings to be allowed permanently. In late May, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg brought litigation funders under the Corporations Act for six months in an attempt to slow the booming class action industry. The government also gave a six-month reprieve to directors from continuous disclosure rules in another move designed to insulate companies from class action law suits. Companies and their officers are only liable for continuous disclosure breaches if there is "knowledge, recklessness or negligence" with respect to updates on price sensitive information. But the survey suggests the government has not gone far enough. "It is a strong first step and an important acknowledgment by the government that this is an issue that is having a significant impact on companies. But we need to go a bit further to get a more effective regime in place," AICD chief Angus Armour said. Mr. Armour took issue with the ability of shareholders to bring a class action alleging misleading and deceptive behaviour by directors but with no need to prove fault or intent. "The challenge is there is a low bar to comment a class action. If a director sets out to mislead the market they should be held accountable. I don't think the current settings are balanced in that way," Mr. Armour said. Research has also shown that Australia's civil penalties are harsh. On the employment front, 42 per cent of listed company directors said they expected to reduce staff by up to one-quarter of current levels, while nearly 10 per cent anticipated cutbacks would be far more severe. Just under 30 per cent had made use of the JobKeeper scheme. Job cuts at listed companies are expected to be higher than in other sectors. When the AICD's membership of public sector, not-for-profit and privately owned companies is included, 31 per cent of directors overall said they expected staff levels to fall to between 75 per cent and 99 per cent of current levels. Some 13 per cent of directors overall said they expected to employ more people over the next six months. Despite earlier calls from individual directors to open up the economy as quickly as possible, 73 per cent of board members of publicly listed companies called for a gradual lifting of public health restrictions over the next six months in order to minimise the chances of a new outbreak of coronovirus. The same number wanted a cautious phasing out of policies such as the JobKeeper allowance and the coronavirus supplement to a variety of welfare payments over the next six months, even if it increased the size of the deficit. Mr. Armour said he was struck by directors' desire for a radical re-set of regulation and policy, which he said included harmonising state and federal regulations, energy and climate change policy and business investment. [GN] [*] Florida Supreme Court Suspends Attorney Behind Insurer Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amy O'Connor, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that the Florida Supreme Court has granted an emergency request by the Florida bar to immediately suspend an attorney who, with his firm, has filed thousands of assignment of benefit and first party lawsuits against Florida property insurers over the last several years. The state's high court approved the petition for an emergency suspension of Scot Strems, owner and sole named partner of Coral Gables-based Strems Law Firm, on June 9. The move came after the Florida bar filed a 48-page petition on June 4 alleging that Strems has been the respondent of several complaints before the Florida bar and that he and his firm are "causing great public harm." Strems' firm is accused by the bar of engaging in "mendacious, bad-faith conduct" and making dishonest or even fraudulent statements to other parties involved in suits, including the court. The bar also accuses Strems of illegally filing multiple lawsuits on an individual policy claim, delaying and ignoring court deadlines, and violating court orders. "Mr. Strems sits at the head of a vast campaign of unprofessional, unethical, and fraudulent conduct that now infects courts and communities across the state," the petition states. The bar's petition said that given the pattern of conduct by Strems and his firm and the "clear and unquestionable" harm to the public, the immediate suspension was warranted. Strems did not respond to multiple requests for comment but his attorney Mark Kamilar said in an email to Insurance Journal on June 10 that, "Scot Strems strongly disputes the allegations and is working with The Bar to set a hearing to present his defense." The firm's website states the firm has approximately 20 attorneys across six offices in the state and that it specializes in first-party property claims, in which it represents homeowners against their property insurers. A former associate of the firm testified it had filed more than 10,000 suits against Florida property insurance companies. "Despite the professional veneer of the firm's website, dockets across Florida are replete with orders sanctioning Mr. Strems and his subordinates for the delay, misrepresentation, and bad faith that have become the hallmarks of their firm's litigation practice," the bar stated in its petition. The petition says Strems' firm files separate lawsuits against insurers for individual claims, "even though they occur under the same policy, at the same property, and at the same time." After these cases are filed, water mitigation firm All Insurance Restoration Services, Inc. (AIRS), subsequently files multiple lawsuits in county courts relating to the same losses. The bar petition states that while SLF does not typically represent AIRS, the water mitigation firm will proceed under an AOB that has been executed by SLF's clients. "The end result is that the involvement of respondent and his firm results in four separate lawsuits filed resulting from the same alleged occurrence," the bar petition says. The bar cites a motion from Avatar Insurance Co. that the firm has worked in tandem with AIR and the public adjusting firm Contender Claims Consultants, noting the entities are involved in "literally thousands of claims together, more likely tens of thousands of claims." Cited in the 700-pages of documents that accompany the petition as evidence are: More than 30 orders and other filings of case dismissals with prejudice because of "willful violations" of a court's orders or purposeful delays, as well as sanctions against the firm, involving 18 cases against eight different insurance companies. A class action lawsuit by claimants who say they were illegally solicited and profited off of by the firm and other third parties. Affidavits by two Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court judges who have handled hundreds of cases brought by Strems. A deposition of the firm's former litigation manager who testified that the firm has handled as many as 10,000 suits at once, that Strems attorney's for the firm didn't keep track of their time and fee sheets stating time spent on cases were falsified. The bar said "numerous parties have been and continue to be injured by [Strems] bad faith," including: insurers and their counsel who must litigate these cases; the courts; the public and Florida homeowners "whose premiums ultimately fund both sides of SLF's cases" and the clients of Strems' "who are sometimes conscripted (unwittingly or otherwise) into the firm's conduct, and whose claims are frequently rendered worthless due to court sanctions." Also cited in the petition are synopses of orders and other filings across 18 separate cases that "lay bare the pattern of unethical and unprofessional conduct by respondent and SLF." "The orders . . . by no means represent the totality of sanctions issued against respondent and his firm. Indeed, the orders themselves make reference to yet more sanctions orders which are not addressed in this petition," the bar states. In an affidavit dated May 4, Judge Gregory Holder of the Thirteenth Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, Fla., said he personally had presided over hundreds of first-party property claims cases involving Scot Strems or the Strems Law Firm. Holder said he and other judges in the court's General Civil Division have had many conversations concerning the pattern and practice of Strems and the Strems Law Firm. "Universally, these discussions have noted his absolute violations of the Rules of Professional Responsibility and blatant obstruction of justice in virtually every case where he and his firm enter an appearance," Holder stated. Holder also noted Strems' conduct has resulted in "clear and unquestionable great harm to these Florida citizens who have chosen Mr. Strems and his firm to represent their interests." Affected Companies Florida-based Security First Insurance Co. has litigated hundreds of Strems cases and filed multiple sanctions against the firm. Representatives from the company told Insurance Journal the firm engaged in the aforementioned delay tactics on claims investigations, inflated or misrepresented claims, and delayed court proceedings like discovery efforts and depositions on claims lawsuits in attempts to increase its fee payouts. Security First currently has 209 open cases with the Strems firm. In January, Security First deposed former Strems litigation manager and managing partner Christian Aguirre in a $321,000 fee dispute. Aguirre, who resigned from the firm in 2018, testified that at one point during his tenure the firm had as many as 10,000 lawsuits against insurance companies and that he personally handled as many as 700 in one year for the firm. In the deposition, included as evidence in the petition for Strems emergency suspension, Aguirre said the Strems firm did not instruct him to keep track of his time and the law firm billed for case meetings that never occurred. Bill Mitchell, head of the First Party Practice Group for insurance defense firm Conroy Simberg in Tampa, called the Strems Law Firm "the worst" in terms of firms that sue Florida insurers. He said he personally had multiple interactions with the Strems firm in cases he worked where its attorney's would fail to show up for examination under oath requests, depositions, and not respond to discovery. The goal of Strems, he said, was to incur larger fees by dragging out the cases. "When you negotiate a settlement after a year and a half, they feel they are entitled to a higher fee of that settlement when in reality that claim could have been settled in 30 days," Mitchell said. Roger Desjadon, CEO of Florida Peninsula Insurance Co., said the company has had a "magnitude" of lawsuits submitted by the Strems firm – and in many cases it has been multiple lawsuits on the same loss. He described Strems as among the top three or four firms filing lawsuits against his company. "This particular law firm is a very well recognized name in the state of Florida in the realm of lawsuits for profit, or the allegation of lawsuits for profit," he said. What's Next The Supreme Court's emergency suspension states that Strems may no longer accept new clients and must cease to represent any clients after 30 days of the court order. In addition, Strems must notify all clients, opposing counsel and courts where he is counsel of record of his suspension, which Mitchell said leaves any case for which he is personally named on the retaining agreements in limbo. It was not clear if the other attorneys at the firm will take over these cases for the Strems firm. Additionally, Strems must provide The Florida Bar with the requisite affidavit listing all clients, opposing counsel and courts informed of the order within 30 days. Strems was further ordered by the court to stop disbursing or withdrawing any funds from any trust account related to his law practice without approval of the Florida Supreme Court or appointees, as well as other conditions related to financials. A referee will be appointed by the Florida Supreme Court within 14 days and a case management conference will be conducted within the next two months. Strems is expected to respond to the Florida Bar's petition. AOB & Lawsuit Abuse Some in the insurance industry hope this situation will be an example to the Florida Legislature of how certain law firms are taking advantage of insureds and exploiting the state's legal system for their own gain, and that lawmakers take steps to address the issue. "I would like to see a greater focus on how these sort of actions impact the industry as a whole and consumers as a whole, because unfortunately I think a lot of people have the misconception that when we, being insurance companies, pay fraudulent, frivolous or over-inflated claims, that it's a victimless crime and that it doesn't matter," said Melissa Burt DeVriese, president of Security First. DeVriese said insurers in Florida are filing large rate increases because of losses related to excessive litigation like what was happening with Strems, and, "Guess who pays those rate increases? The consumer." "The vast majority of people do not file frivolous lawsuits. They do not file frivolous claims, but they're all bearing the cost of a handful of bad actors," she said. "That's what I'd like to see come out of this situation is a focus on bad actors, a focus on the cost drivers in the Florida market that are leading consumers to pay more for their homeowners insurance than they should be." Desjadon said addressing the issues with this one particular law firm is a good step, but the problems won't go away even if Strems is disbarred. He said the legislature needs to look at the one-way attorney fee statute and changing the formula of fee multipliers on first party lawsuits so attorneys are not incentivized to file frivolous claims. "I think that this for everyone really is kind of a wake-up call that something needs to be done, or the alternative is there will undoubtedly continue to be problems with pricing and problems with availability," he said. [GN] [*] Harmful Sanitizers May Prompt Class Actions, Underwriters Say ----------------------------------------------------------------- African News Agency reports that a South African underwriting firm said on June 10 retailers could potentially face a new surge of class action and personal injury claims for negligence regarding the use of harmful products such as hand sanitisers at store entrances. The country's large retailers and smaller businesses have been spraying customers with alcohol-based hand sanitiser in order to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus. Many people have, however, reported reacting negatively to the sanitisers, and in some cases, have said the skin on their hands is peeling, or the area becomes inflamed. According to Bonginkosi Ntuli, a claims specialist for professional indemnity and liability claims at SHA Specialist Underwriters, said while it was debatable retailers could be held legally accountable for allergic reactions to hand sanitisers, they should nevertheless "act cautiously and ensure they have adequate cover in place". "Government issued a directive requiring all stores to comply by ensuring that they have hand sanitisers available, with the only requirement being that they should be 70% alcohol based," said Ntuli. "Retailers had to be compliant by order of law, and may not have had enough time to conduct thorough testing. Scientific study will likely show that in any control group, a percentage of people could expect adverse reactions to any product. The question is whether stores can be held legally accountable if, for example, one out of every 10,000 people has a non-lethal reaction. Should the risk of averting Covid-19 enjoy priority over general consumer safety?" Ntuli said it would be "interesting" to see if courts believed the Consumer Protection Act was applicable in such cases, as the sanitisers were applied as a pre-requisite to entering stores. He said that even if retailers were not held legally accountable for injury or damages in this regard, they were at risk of losing substantial amounts of money if they were not adequately insured against personal injury claims. "For a claimant to successfully sue a retailer, they would be required to prove that the harm caused was a direct or indirect result of the harmful product supplied by the store. While the court's judgement may ultimately be in favour of the retailer, the legal fees that one incurs while defending such claims, can have a significant impact on a business." Ntuli said the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated worldwide that whether in business or government, compliance was needed. "The current regulations under the Disaster Management Act is in some respects a moving target. As long as there is a responsible officer or company director in charge of these issues - there should be some structure in place to deal with a fluid compliance environment." He said retailers should be cautious with the products they used to sanitise their stores, staff and customers. [GN] [*] Simpson Thacher Attorneys Discuss Art. III Standing Rulings --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq., and Shannon K. McGovern, Esq., of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, in an article for Law.com, report that a plaintiff's standing to bring a claim is a threshold justiciability inquiry in all actions, including class actions. The Supreme Court has instructed that "[i]n an era of frequent litigation [and] class actions, . . . courts must be more careful to insist on the formal rules of standing, not less so." Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 131 S.Ct. 1436, 1449 (2011). The interplay of constitutional standing principles and class certification, however, has occasioned a circuit-level conflict. Courts have wrestled extensively but inconclusively with the standing and Rule 23 (and related Seventh Amendment, Rules Enabling Act and due process) questions presented when certification of a proposed class risks allowing uninjured class members to participate in a class action. The Supreme Court has acknowledged the "great importance" of these questions, but to date has declined to answer them. Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S.Ct. 1036, 1050 (2016). The most recent circuit-level pronouncements, from the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, frame class member standing as a question of not if it must be shown, but when it must be shown. The Eleventh Circuit held that "whether absent class members can establish standing may be exceedingly relevant to the class certification analysis," and that district courts must evaluate whether individualized questions about which members have standing predominate over questions susceptible to class-wide proof. The Ninth Circuit held that each member of a certified class must establish Article III standing "at the final judgment stage" of the class action in order to recover money damages. While the Ninth Circuit did not require proof of class member standing at the class certification stage, it cautioned that "district courts and parties should keep in mind that they will need a mechanism for identifying class members who lack standing at the damages phase" when they consider class certification. Ramirez v. TransUnion, 951 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2020); Cordoba v. DIRECTV, 942 F.3d 1259, 1269–70 (11th Cir. 2019). Background There is no such thing as class standing. If an absent class member were to bring an individual suit in federal court, that person would need to allege, and ultimately prove, that she suffered an injury that affected her "in a personal and individual way." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 n.1 (1992). That is because a plaintiff "must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). This obligation exists "at the successive stages of the litigation," and must be supported in the manner required by the relevant stage. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. This precept accords with black letter doctrine that, as a procedural device, a class action enlarges no substantive rights, eliminates no defenses to individual claims, and creates no Article III case or controversy where none would otherwise exist. Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613 (1997). Ultimately, any class member who claims a right to participate in a settlement or money judgment must demonstrate individual standing to recover. Tyson Foods, 136 S.Ct. at 1053 (Roberts, C.J., concurring) ("Article III does not give federal courts the power to order relief to any uninjured plaintiff, class action or not. The Judiciary's role is limited 'to provid[ing] relief to claimants, in individual or class actions, who have suffered, or will imminently suffer, actual harm.'"). A threshold question arises: What, if anything, does Article III demand of putative, unnamed class members either at the Rule 12(b) or Rule 23 certification stage? In the class-action context, including cases seeking prospective injunctive relief, Article III requires that only the named plaintiff demonstrate standing to assert the claims (including injury-in-fact) at the motion to dismiss and class certification stages. Individual absent class members do not need to submit evidence of personal standing at the motion to dismiss or class certification stages; in fact, they are not parties who will be bound by the action unless and until a class is certified. In practice, this means that the proposed class representatives do not need to submit individualized proof of the standing of any absent class members. Instead, proposed class representatives must either define the class "in such a way that anyone within it would have standing," Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 263-64 (2d Cir. 2006), or show through some other means or "common evidence" that "all class members were in fact injured." In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 725 F.3d 244, 252-53 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Those propositions are consistent with the Supreme Court's statement that "a class representative must be part of the same class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members." Amchem, 521 U.S. at 625–26. They also implicate a key component of class certification: that the class membership be readily ascertainable by reference to objective criteria. Without a manageable way to identify who is part of a class, the efficiencies of a class action are lost to individual mini-trials. There is broad agreement that permitting uninjured claimants to recover money damages in federal court merely because they are aggregated with injured claimants in a class action violates the Rules Enabling Act, Rule 82 (prohibiting extension of federal court jurisdiction through procedure), and due process. Accordingly, at some point during purported class litigation the district court needs to determine whether each absent class member has standing before it grants any relief to class members. The circuit scorecard defies neat groupings but broadly speaking the circuits have followed two distinct approaches in evaluating standing for class certification purposes. The Second, Eighth and D.C. Circuits require that in order for a class to be certified, the class must be defined such that anyone within it would have standing to pursue the claim. Halvorson v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 718 F.3d 773, 778 (8th Cir. 2013); In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 725 F.3d 244, 252 (D.C. Cir. 2013); Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 264 (2d Cir. 2006). In the leading Denney decision, the court stated that class members need not "submit evidence of personal standing" at the motion to dismiss or certification phases, but that "no class may be certified that contains members lacking Article III standing." In contrast, the First, Third, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have held that absent class members do not need to satisfy the standing requirements of Article III, and that uninjured persons who would lack standing to pursue their claims individually nevertheless can do so -- at least before final judgment -- merely because their claims are joined in a class action with others who have standing. These courts permit class certification despite the inclusion of uninjured members if it is clear it will be possible to establish a mechanism at the damages stage for winnowing out any uninjured members, i.e. to ensure that only injured parties ultimately participate in any recovery. See, e.g., In re Nexium Antitrust Litig., 777 F.3d 9, 19 (1st Cir. 2015); DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188, 1198 (10th Cir. 2010); Kohen v. Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co., 571 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2009); Krell v. Prudential Insurance Co. of Am., 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998). But see Nexium, 777 F.3d at 35 (Kayatta, J., dissenting) (criticizing majority's "de minimis" uninjured class members standard; "If 2.4% is okay, why not 5.7%? Or any number under 50%?"). Ramirez arrived amid significant uncertainty about the Ninth Circuit's approach to absent class member standing and class certification. Compare Torres v. Mercer Canyons, 835 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016) ("fortuitous non-injury to a subset of class members does not necessarily defeat certification of the entire class, particularly as the district court is well situated to winnow out those non-injured members at the damages phase of the litigation, or to refine the class definition"); and Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013, 1021 (9th Cir. 2011) ("our law keys on the representative party, not all of the class members") with Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581, 594 (9th Cir. 2012) ("'[N]o class may be certified that contains members lacking Article III standing.'"). Recent Decisions In Cordoba, the Eleventh Circuit provided a thoughtful analysis of the relationship between class certification and the standing of absent class members, and ruled that evaluating whether a significant number of putative class members will need to submit individualized proof of injury in order to recover is an integral part of Rule 23's predominance inquiry. Plaintiff alleged class claims in Georgia federal court under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against DIRECTV and its telemarketing vendor based on his receipt of phone calls despite requests that he not be contacted. Defendants admitted that they failed to maintain an internal do-not-call list as required by FCC regulations. The district court certified a class defined as "all individuals who received more than one telemarketing call" from defendants during the time they failed to comply with the FCC's do-not-call list regulations (i.e., failed to maintain a list of all those who asked not to receive calls). The Eleventh Circuit reversed the class certification. It first ruled that the named plaintiff had standing because he received more than one phone call after asking to be placed on the do-not-call list. The court concluded, however, that members of the class who did not ask DIRECTV to stop calling them would lack standing to maintain a claim that the caller failed to institute appropriate internal do-not-call list procedures. The court then turned to what part this lack of standing plays in the class certification analysis. While acknowledging that the Article III standing inquiry at the class certification stage addresses only the named plaintiff, not absent class members, the court emphasized that whether a class definition includes uninjured absent class members is very much a Rule 23 concern. Before any relief can be awarded to class members, the Eleventh Circuit stated, "the district court will have to determine whether each member of the class has standing." In determining how class member standing inquiries affect predominance, the Eleventh Circuit framed two questions for consideration at the class certification stage: (1) how many class members (or what proportion of them) lack standing; and (2) what proof is necessary to determine whether class members have suffered the concrete injury needed to establish standing? The court vacated class certification because absent class member standing was "an individualized issue," and the district court did not consider it in deciding "whether issues common to the class actually predominated over issues that were individualized to each class member." The Eleventh Circuit declined to pre-judge the predominance inquiry: on remand, "[i]f most class members made [do-not-call] requests, or if there is a plausible straightforward method to sort them out at the back end of the case, then the class might appropriately proceed as it is currently defined. If, however, few made these requests, or if it will be extraordinarily difficult to identify those who did, then the class would be overbroad and these individualized determinations might overwhelm issues common to the class." In Ramirez, the named plaintiff alleged in California federal court that he had difficulty obtaining an auto loan because his name appeared on a credit report as a potential match to information listed on the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) Database. Defendant had inaccurately added OFAC alerts to the front page of the credit report of plaintiff and several thousand other consumers, inaccurately labeling putative class members as national security threats. Plaintiff alleged, among other claims, that defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to maintain "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" of consumer reports. Plaintiff did not seek to represent a class of individuals who experienced similar problems because of the mislabeling. Instead, he sought to represent a much broader nationwide damages class of every individual who received a letter from defendant informing them that they were potential OFAC matches (even though, for more than 75% of those individuals, the information was not disseminated to any third party). Even though it appeared that most absent class members had not suffered a concrete injury, the district court refused to decertify the class containing a majority of uninjured class members through trial and a plaintiff verdict. As the dissent by Judge McKeown observed, "the hallmark of the trial was the absence of evidence about absent class members, or any evidence that they were in the same boat as Ramirez." A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed class certification and the verdict's statutory damages award, holding that "[e]ach member of a class certified under Rule 23 must satisfy the bare minimum of Article III standing at the final judgment stage of a class action in order to recover monetary damages in federal court." "To hold otherwise," the court reasoned, "would directly contravene the Rules Enabling Act, because it would transform the class action - a mere procedural device- into a vehicle for individuals to obtain money judgments in federal court even though they could not show sufficient injury to recover those judgments individually." The court reaffirmed, however, that only the named plaintiff needs to allege standing at the motion to dismiss and class certification stages. Although a less prominent part of the decision than in Cordoba, the Ninth Circuit in a footnote also cautioned that at the class certification stage "district courts and parties should keep in mind that they will need a mechanism for identifying class members who lack standing at the damages phase." 951 F.3d at 1023 n.6. Having concluded that each class member must have standing to recover damages, the majority ruled that every class member had standing on all the claims in the case. Even though the inaccurate reports prepared about thousands of members of the putative class were not disseminated to third parties, these members had standing to pursue FCRA claims because there existed a "material risk of harm to the concrete interests of all class members," which "caus[ed] the uncertainty and stress that Congress aimed to prevent in enacting the FCRA." The court did not require individualized class member proof of "uncertainty and stress" to support the verdict, concluding that being inaccurately labeled as a national security threat was "inherently shocking and confusing." In dissent, Judge McKeown stated that while the majority declared that each member of a certified class must demonstrate Article III standing at the final judgment stage in order to recover damages, "[t]his principle . . . does not square with what happened at the trial, which opened with class counsel telling jurors that they would learn 'the story of Mr. Ramirez.'" But that was all jurors heard, "leaving them to assume that the absent class members suffered the same injury." Defendants intend to petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. Conclusion Article III bars any person - whether named plaintiff or absent class member - from recovering damages in federal court without a cognizable injury. Rule 23, the Rules Enabling Act, and due process require that a defendant have the opportunity to challenge each putative class member's claim of Article III injury; class certification should not be granted if that inquiry will necessitate individualized inquiries into each member's circumstances. Even if only the named plaintiff needs to demonstrate Article III standing at the motion to dismiss and class certification stages, Cordoba and Ramirez are important reminders that a class should not be certified unless plaintiff establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the process of distinguishing the injured claimants from the uninjured claimants will not entail highly individualized factual inquiries inconsistent with a finding of predominance. [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 ***