/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 ***