/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200629.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 29, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 129 Headlines 3A COMPOSITES: Cladding Class Action Moves Forward in Australia AGMENT LLC: Seeks Sixth Cir. Review of Ruling in Gilbo FLSA Suit AGODA CO: Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Phan Suit AKAZOO S.A.: Caldwell et al. Sue Over Misleading SEC Statements ALLERGAN INC: Lorne Files Personal Injury Suit in E.D. Missouri ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Extends Case Schedule in Olberg Suit ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Flam Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Refuses Refund of Ski Pass Fees, Simpson Claims AMB CONSTRUCTION: Class in Kllogjeri Suit Certified APPLE INC: Faces $5MM Class Action Over In-App Purchases APPLE INC: Settles GTAT Investor Class Action for $3.5 Million AR RESOURCES: Knight Sues in New Jersey Over Violation of FDCPA ARROW SCRAP: Matute Seeks Proper Wage for Machine Operators ASIAN MOON: Zhang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Illegally Collects Insurance Fees, Basli Alleges BANK OF AMERICA: Leyse Appeals Decision in TCPA Suit to 3rd Cir. BANNER BANK: Court OKs Proposed Class Notice in Bolding Suit BATON ROUGE, LA: Belton Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses BERNIE 2020: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Buller et al. Claim BIRMINGHAM, AL: Attorneys' Fees Award in Securities Suit Upheld BLAUER MANUFACTURING: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York BLUE BRIDGE: Underpays Staff, Daniel Suit Alleges BOB'S DISCOUNT: Underpays Deliverymen, Mendez and Jimenez Claim BP SOLAR: Court Orders Class Settlement Website Update in Allagas BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in Savino Detainee Suit CALOP BUSINESS: Denies Earned Wages and OT Pay, Fernandez Alleges CAMC HEALTH: Court Dismisses A.H. Suit Without Prejudice CANADA: Families of Nova Scotia Mass Shooting Victims Sue RCMP CANADA: Indian Day School Settlement Forms "Misleading" Survivors CARDINAL HEALTH: $215M Opioid Suit Settlement with 2 Ohio Counties CARDINAL HEALTH: 105 Opioid Suits Filed by Private Plaintiffs CARDINAL HEALTH: Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust Suits Pending CARDINAL HEALTH: Still Faces Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension Fund Suit CARNIVAL CORP: Hid COVID-19 Management Failures, Suit Claims CARRIAGE SERVICES: Uschold Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Cir. CARVE DESIGNS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation CASPER SLEEP: Lematta Sues Over Steep Decline in Share Price CASTLE PARKING: Evanston Files Insurance Suit in N.D. Georgia CHASE BANK: Young Appeals Decision in Consumer Suit to 3rd Cir. CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Glancy Prongay Probes Securities Claims CITIZEN ENERGY: Harcum Suit Balks at Merger Agreement CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR: Dillon Appeals D. Ore. Ruling to Ninth Cir. CLARK COUNTY, NV: Court Dismisses Allison Suit Without Prejudice COLONY CAPITAL: Disclosures Misled Investors, Swartzendruber Says COMMUNITY CARE: Faces Class Action Over 2019 Data Breach CONVERSE INC: Gets Partial OK on Summary Judgment Bid in Chavez COSTCO WHOLESALE: Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought COVANCE INC: $183K Deal in Sealock Suit Gets Final Court Approval CRONOS GROUP: Putative Class Suits Underway in E.D.N.Y. CRONOS GROUP: Suit Against Redwood Holding Dismissed CURADEN AG: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Lyngaas TCPA Suit CURO GROUP: Carpenters Pension Seeks to Certify Class Action DANBY PRODUCTS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation DAVE'S HOT CHICKEN: Faces Figueroa Suit Over Sick Leave Notice DELTA AIR: Polk Seeks Refunds for Passengers on Canceled Flights DENKA PERFORMANCE: Judge Dismisses Class Action DETROIT, MI: 6th Circuit Dimisses "Gary B." Literacy Case DOLLAR TREE: Faces Esco Tort Suit in California Superior Court DON BARNES: Class Certification Bid Placed Under Submission DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Denson Files Suit in E.D. New York DR. REDDY'S: Fairness Hearing on $9MM Deal Set for Sept. 29 ELECTRIC ANIMAL: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA ELEVATE CREDIT: Sanh Suit v. Rise Credit Service of Texas Ongoing ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defrauds Securities Investors, Albiges Alleges ERIE INSURANCE: Denies Coverage for COVID Losses, Sulimay's Says EVENFLO COMPANY: Brinkerhoff Suit Moved From Ohio to D. Mass. EVENFLO COMPANY: Feinfeld Suit Moved From Ohio to Massachusetts EVENFLO COMPANY: Reed Suit Moved From E.D. Wash. to D. Mass. EVENFLO COMPANY: Talutto Suit Moved From Florida to Massachusetts EVERQUOTE INC: Faces Runyon Suit Over Unsolicited Calls EVERQUOTE INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Still Stayed FERNISHED INC: Rodriguez Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation FIFTH THIRD: Zanni Fraud Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill. FLUSHING PARIS: Xingyan Cao Seeks Wages for Wedding Stores Staff FORD MODELS: Little Appeals Decision in Pressley Class Suit FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Vincent Wong Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Travel Vouchers GATESTONE & CO: Herskovits Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York GEORGIA: Bowman Files TCPA Suit vs. Sen. Unterman in N.D. Georgia GOLDEN STAR: Share Price Artificially Inflated, Schmidt Claims GRAND CANYON: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 13 Deadline GREAT LAKES EDUCATION: Calif Class Suit Filed on Borrowers' Behalf GROUPON INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 29 Deadline GROWERSHOUSE LLC: Misclassifies Sales Staff, Buber et al Claim HALIFAX-YARMOUTH ARCHDIOCESE: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 6 Deadline HALLMARK FINANCIAL: RM LAW Files Class Action Suit HALLMARK FINC'L: Block & Leviton Reminds of July 6 Motion Deadline HAMILTON BEACH: Block & Leviton Reminds of July 21 Motion Deadline HAMILTON BEACH: Chen Sues Over 9% Decline in Share Price HANOVER INSURANCE: Stanford Sues Over Preemptively Denied Claims HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Appeals Decision in Greene Suit to 9th Cir. HEALTH-ADE LLC: Faces Rodriguez ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Suit HIRE TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Workman Claims HOGAN SERVICES: Underpays Fleet Managers, Croskey Suit Alleges HOMES.COM INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Charman Alleges HORIZONS ETFS: Torkin Manes Discusses Ruling in Wright Suit INDIANA: Foster Care System Class Action Stays on Track INT'L AUTOMOTIVE: Underpays Production Workers, Clark Alleges INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Kiler Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA INTERARCH INC: Mismanaged Profit Sharing Plan, McCann Says JD PRODUCE: Fails to Provide Proper Wages to Drivers, Lin Claims JIANPU TECH: Bid to Strike Exhibits to Fumerton Declaration Denied JOHN F. KENNEDY HS: Plaintiffs Want School to Turn Over Evidence KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Venkataraman Securities Suit in Calif. KINJO INC: Silva Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA and NYLL KTH PARTS: Conditionally Certifying Collective FLSA Class Sought LAPLACE, LA: Watkins Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to Fifth Circuit LONGFIN CORP: May 15 Scheduling Order Vacated in Securities Suit LYFT INC: First Cir. Appeal Filed in Cunningham Employment Suit MAJOR LEAGUE: Manfred Letter Should Be Unsealed, Judge Rules MCDONALD'S: Solidarity Statement Criticized Amid Class Action MDL 2954: Transfer of 8 PPP Loan Actions to S.D. Texas Sought MEDICAL STAFFING: Discovery Schedule in Junkerseld Lawsuit Revised MEDICAL SUPPLY: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA MERLIN ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Bautista Suit in S.D. California MIDLAND CREDIT: Midland Funding Appeals Decision in Moses Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Midland Funding Can't Intervene in Feist FDCPA Suit MORGAN STANLEY: Still Defends Iowa Public Employees' Class Suit NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision Affirmed NED LAMONT: Certification of Registered Voters Class Sought NELNET INC: Five Student Loan Borrowers File Class Action NEVADA PROPERTY 1: Unlawfully Withholds Tips, Merced et al Claim NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Lopez et al. Seek OT Pay for Bank Personnel NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Velazquez Filed in Gulino Bias Suit NORMAN BARWIN: 16th Biological Child Joins Class Action NORTHERN TRUST: Court Dismisses Banks Class Suit With Prejudice OKLAHOMA GAS: Williams Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA OSMOSE UTILITIES: Deadline for Papers in Fisher Moved to July 20 OTA FRANCHISE: Online Investment Training Fraudulent, Avila Says PALMER CITY, TX: Charpentier Seeks OT Pay for Police Officers PANDORA MARKETING: Jenkins Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina PIZZA CZAR: Bid to File Ewing Settlement Docs Under Seal Denied PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action PRO TEETH WHITENING: Faces Roussel ADA Suit in Rhode Island PROASSURANCE CORP: Frank R. Cruz Files Class Action PROASSURANCE CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action PROASSURANCE CORP: Portnoy Law Files Class Action Lawsuit PROASSURANCE CORP: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action PROASSURANCE CORP: Schall Law Files Class Action Complaint RADIUS GLOBAL: Kahn Sues in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces Matthews Class Suit in E.D. California RECKITT BENCKISER: Matthews Sues Over Neuriva's Deceptive Labeling RETURN DISPOSAL: Smith Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA RM PARTNERS: Asner Appeals Ruling in Hengle Suit to 4th Circuit RM PARTNERS: Treppa Appeals Ruling in Hengle Suit to 4th Circuit ROHR INC: Morgan May File 2nd Amended Complaint in Labor Suit ROYAL CANIN: Remand of Wullschleger Suit to State Court Vacated RYDER SYSTEM: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of July 20 Deadline SAFE CREDIT: Newbold Sues in Cal. Asserting Business Tort Claims SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Cert. Petition Filed in D.C. Class Suit SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Norbert Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir. SANIMAX USA: Court OKs $750K Deal for South St. Paul Residents SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Faces Rodriguez Personal Injury Suit in Fla. SCHENKER INC: Court Dismisses Ramos Labor Suit Without Prejudice SCHENKER INC: Orpilla Remanded to Santa Clara County Superior Court SCWORX CORP: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 29 Deadline SEA & SALT: Cisneros Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SIGUE CORP: Faces Babare TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts SK UNITED: Riley Seeks to Certify Drivers' Collective Action SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 27 Deadline SOUTH STATE: Austin Sues Over Illegal Collection of Overdraft Fees SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Makes Attempt to Avert "Opt Out" Class Action SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: COBRA Notice Untimely, Carter Says STATE FARM: Turek Enterprises Sues Over Denied Insurance Claims STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Davison Balks at Menarini Merger Deal SUBWAY FRANCHISEE: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Soliman TCPA Suit SUPERIOR ENERGY: Underpays Field Service Advisors, Brown Claims SVA HEALTHCARE: Navigators Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice TACTILE SYSTEMS: Barbuto Investigates Securities Claims TENDERLOIN HOUSING: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Fenix Says TIME INC: California Court Dismisses Hall Suit With Prejudice TRANSCOM WORLDWIDE: Carbajal Seeks Pay for Call Center Staff TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE: Hong Suit Seeks Insurance Benefits TYSON FOODS: Faces Antitrust Investigation Amid Class Action UNITED COLLECTION: Faces Flam FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York UNITED PARCEL: Domingquez Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses UNITED STATES OIL FUND: Lucas Alleges Securities Trade Deception UNITED STATES: Kluge Files Suit in U.S. Court of Federal Claims UNIVERSAL STANDARD: Faces Crosson ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York USA MEDICAL: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation VALE: Settles Samarco Dam Disaster Class Action for $25 Million VALLEY FORGE: Denies Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, Hong Suit Says VARSITY BRANDS: Monopolizes All-Star Markets, Fusion Elite Says VIMEO INC: Seeks Seventh Cir. Review of Order in Acaley BIPA Suit VINEYARD VINES: Cohen Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Circuit VNC INC: Faces Drayton NJCFA Suit Over Charges on Bought Vehicles WATERLOO REGIONAL: Ont. App. Ct. Upholds Ruling in Policewomen Suit WELLS FARGO: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Suit WESCO INSURANCE: Daij, Inc. Seeks Pay for COVID-Related Losses WEST MARINE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Adams Labor Suit WESTERN DENTAL: Settlement in Bulette Suit Gets Prelim. Approval WILD THINGS: Bunting Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation WILHELMINA MODELS: Shanklin Appeals N.Y. Ct. Order in Labor Suit WILLIAM J GERTZ: Jimenez Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to D. Mass. WINRED TECHNICAL: Faces Whittaker Suit Over Unsolicited Texts XPRESSION OF AWARENESS: Dhesi Suit Seeks to Certify Class [*] 428 New Securities Class Actions Filed in 2019, Report Shows [*] Borden Ladner Attorneys Discuss Climate Change Litigation [*] Capital Watch Looks Into Investor Suits v. Asian Cos. in U.S. [*] Korean Student Group Calls for Tuition Refund Class Action [*] Lawyers, Class Action Litigation Funders Get Big Profits [*] Torys LLP Attorneys Discuss COVID-19 Litigation Risk ********* 3A COMPOSITES: Cladding Class Action Moves Forward in Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- InsuranceNews.com.au reports that a class action seeking product liability damages from a cladding maker has scored a "major win" in the Federal Court of Australia, paving the way for the lawsuit to continue, litigation funder Omni Bridgeway says. German manufacturer 3A Composites, one of two respondents named in the class action, had submitted that the proceeding should no longer continue or alternatively, there should be a cap on the number of people who are entitled to participate. But the court has rejected the submission, which means the plaintiffs can proceed with the class action against the maker of Alucobond PE and Plus cladding, Omni Bridgeway says. "This is a major win for the claimants and means they can continue to pursue compensation from the manufacturers," Investment Manager Gavin Beardsell said. "We are delighted with the Federal Court's decision." Mr. Beardsell told insuranceNEWS.com.au the next step of the class action will see the parties confer to identify an interim set of questions to be determined at the initial trial as well as the form and scope of discovery. The class action against 3A Composites and Sydney-based HVG commenced last year and last February, it gained approval from the court to also seek damages for false or misleading representations. [GN] AGMENT LLC: Seeks Sixth Cir. Review of Ruling in Gilbo FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Agment, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jamie Gilbo v. Agment, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00767, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendants, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Wage Law, misclassify exotic dancers as so-called "independent contractors." Agment LLC is an Ohio limited liability company with its principal place of business located in in Lorain County, Ohio. Harley Rowe is the owner of Agment LLC. The Defendants own and operate The Brass Pole, an adult nightclub employing exotic dancers in Elyria, Ohio. The appellate case is captioned as Jamie Gilbo v. Agment, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-3287, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JAMIE GILBO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kevin Michael McDermott, II, Esq. MCDERMOTT LAW 11925 Pearl Road, Suite 302 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 367-9181 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: kevin@mcdermottattorney.com Defendants-Appellants AGMENT, LLC, dba The Brass Pole, and HARLEY E. ROWE, are represented by: Stephen P. Hanudel, Esq. STEPHEN P. HANUDEL, ATTORNEY AT LAW 124 Middle Avenue, Suite 900 Elyria, OH 44035 Telephone: (440) 261-4040 AGODA CO: Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Phan Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AN PHAN, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AGODA COMPANY PTE. LTD., a Singapore Private Limited Liability Company, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-15015 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Agoda. Phan appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Agoda, in a putative class action Phan brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Phan claimed that Agoda sent automated commercial text messages containing advertising or telemarketing to his cellular phone without his prior express written consent in violation of the TCPA. He had made reservations through the online travel agency when he received text messages stating, "Good news! Your Agoda booking [number] is confirmed. Manage your booking with our free app http://app-agoda.com/GetTheApp." Reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Approaching the matter "with a measure of common sense," the Ninth Circuit holds that the text messages in question do not constitute "advertising" within the meaning of the TCPA. "Advertisement" is defined by regulation as any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services. Messages that "facilitate, complete, or confirm a commercial transaction that the recipient has previously agreed to enter into with the sender are not advertisements. By booking travel arrangements through Agoda's website, Phan agreed to enter a commercial transaction with Agoda. A text message confirming that transaction is not advertising. Phan argues that by including a link to download the app, Agoda was advertising its app as one of its products. Considering the context and content of the text messages, the Ninth Circuit does not find that contention persuasive. As the district court recognized, and as many apps are, Agoda's app is functionally the same as its website. Agoda customers could use either Agoda's website or the app to manage existing reservations, just as the messages informed Phan. Because the messages' references to the app indicate a purpose to facilitate a commercial transaction -- to manage existing bookings -- they do not demonstrate a prohibited advertising purpose. Furthermore, Agoda's messages do not mirror the "dual purpose" calls the FCC has characterized as unsolicited advertisements, the Ninth Circuit finds. The texts at issue did not reference any other good or service Agoda offered. Nor do the text messages constitute "telemarketing" because they do not evince a purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services. The messages contain no content encouraging the purchase of any of Agoda's services; they simply confirmed a transaction Phan agreed to enter with Agoda. Accordingly, Agoda was not required to obtain Phan's express written consent prior to sending the messages at issue, the Ninth Circuit opines. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 17, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/4hCZhh from Leagle.com. AKAZOO S.A.: Caldwell et al. Sue Over Misleading SEC Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, TIM CALDWELL and SHARON CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AKAZOO S.A., F/K/A AKAZOO LTD., F/K/A MODERN MEDIA ACQUISITION CORP., F/K/A MODERN MEDIA ACQUISITION CORP. S.A., APOSTOLOS N. ZERVOS, LEWIS W. DICKEY, JR., WILLIAM DREWRY, ADAM KAGAN, and VERONIQUE MARTY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02737 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Akazoo f/k/a Modern Media Acquisition Corp. between January 24, 2019 and May 21, 2020, allege that the Defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts about the financial condition, business, operations, and management of Akazoo and also issued false and misleading Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and public statements to the investing public during the Class period. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Akazoo overstated its revenue, profits, and cash holdings; (2) Akazoo holds significantly lesser music distribution rights than it has stated and implied; (3) Akazoo's does not operate in 25 countries; (4) Akazoo has a significantly smaller user base than it states; (5) Akazoo does not have hyper-local focus or abilities; (6) Akazoo does not have the extensive business-to-business deals across the globe that it claims; and (7) MMAC did not engage in proper due diligence. On April 20, 2020, Quintessential Capital Management (QCM) released an equity report detailing, among other things, how Akazoo misled investors and failed to disclose pertinent information. On this news, Akazoo shares fell $0.53 per share over the rest of the trading day and the next trading day, or over 20%, to close at $1.99 per share on April 21, 2020, damaging investors. Akazoo shares fell 3% to close at $1.163 per share, further damaging investors, before trading was halted at 9:30 am on May 1, 2020. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages and losses as they had purchased the securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class period. Akazoo S.A., f/k/a Akazoo Ltd., f/k/a Modern Media Acquisition Corp., f/k/a Modern Media Acquisition Corp. S.A., is a global on-demand music, audio streaming, media, and artificial intelligence technology company, with its principal executive offices located at One Heddon Street, W1B 4BD, London, England. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com - and – Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 ALLERGAN INC: Lorne Files Personal Injury Suit in E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allergan, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jean Lorne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allergan, Inc. formerly known as: Inamed Corporation, Allergan USA, Inc., Allergan PLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00802-CDP (E.D. Mo., June 19, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Allergan, Inc., was an American global pharmaceutical company focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Lowe, Esq. CAREY AND DANIS 8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 678-3400 Fax: (314) 678-3401 Email: jlowe@careydanis.com - and - John S. Steward, Esq. STEWARD LAW FIRM LLC 1717 Park Avenue St. Louis, MO 63104 Phone: (314) 571-7134 Fax: (314) 594-5950 Email: glaw123@aol.com - and - Joseph V. Neill, Esq. 5201 Hampton Avenue St. Louis, MO 63109 Phone: (314) 353-1001 Fax: (314) 353-0181 Email: neill5300@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: Erick E. VanDorn, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 525 W. Main Street Belleville, IL 62220 Phone: (618) 277-4700 Fax: (618) 236-3434 Email: evandorn@thompsoncoburn.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Extends Case Schedule in Olberg Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEFF OLBERG, an individual, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. C18-0573-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' motion to extend the case schedule. The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action suit on behalf of Washington insureds against the Defendants, asserting a variety of Washington state law claims arising from the Defendants' alleged erroneous valuations of total loss vehicles. The Plaintiffs now seek a 90-day extension of case scheduling deadlines related to their motion for class certification and expert disclosures. The Plaintiffs argue there is good cause to extend the case schedule because Defendants recently disclosed substantial amounts of discovery and Defendant Allstate caused delays by producing an incomplete list of the class members and failing to produce sample claims files. Defendant CCC Information Services Incorporated opposes the Plaintiffs' motion, arguing that a 45-day extension is sufficient and disputing the Plaintiffs' recitation of the parties' discovery conduct. Judge Coughenour finds that the Plaintiffs have established that their request for additional time is necessary because the Defendants have recently produced substantial discovery and because the Plaintiffs require additional discovery to properly support their motion for class certification. The Judge does not take a position on the parties' alleged conduct during discovery. However, the Judge does find that additional time is necessary to enable the Plaintiffs to sufficiently review the discovery produced thus far, obtain outstanding discovery, conduct depositions, and prepare their class certification motion. Granting the Plaintiffs this time will in turn enable the Court to perform its "rigorous analysis" of their motion for class certification. Given these circumstances, and because the record shows that the Plaintiffs have acted with due diligence but cannot meet the deadlines set forth by the current case schedule, the Judge finds good cause to modify the case schedule. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coughenour granted the Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time. The following case schedule has been set: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and expert disclosures are due on May 28, 2020; 2. The deposition of the Plaintiffs' class certification experts must be completed by Aug. 11, 2020; 3. The Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and expert disclosures are due on Aug. 11, 2020; 4. The deposition of the Defendants' class certification experts must be completed by Sept. 22, 2020; and 5. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification is due on Sept. 22, 2020. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/44b5lP from Leagle.com. Jeff Olberg, an individual & Cecilia Ana Palao-Vargas, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David L. Woloshin , ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP, The Bellevue 200 South Broad Street, Suite 600, Philadelphia, PA 19102, pro hac vice, Dina S. Ronsayro , ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP, The Bellevue 200 South Broad Street, Suite 600, Philadelphia, PA 19102, pro hac vice, John M. DeStefano - johnd@hbsslaw.com - HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, pro hac vice, Marc A. Goldich , AXLER GOLDICH LLC, 1520 Locust StreetSuite 301Philadelphia, PA 19102, pro hac vice, Robert B. Carey - rob@hbsslaw.com - HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman - steve@hbsslaw.com - HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP. Michael Clothier, an individual & Jacob Thompson, an individual, Plaintiffs, represented by Steve W. Berman , HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP. Allstate Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter J. Valeta -pvaleta@cozen.com - COZEN O'CONNOR, pro hac vice, Wendy Enerson - wenerson@cozen.com - COZEN O'CONNOR, pro hac vice, Anusha E. Jones - aejones@cozen.com - COZEN O'CONNOR & William Harrison Walsh - wwalsh@cozen.com - COZEN O'CONNOR. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anusha E. Jones , COZEN O'CONNOR & William Harrison Walsh , COZEN O'CONNOR. CCC Information Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jason R. Burt -jason.burt@lw.com - LATHAM & WATKINS, pro hac vice, Kathleen P. Lally - kathleen.lally@lw.com - LATHAM & WATKINS, pro hac vice, Marguerite M. Sullivan - marguerite.sullivan@lw.com - LATHAM & WATKINS, pro hac vice, Steven J. Pacini - steven.pacini@lw.com - LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, pro hac vice & Kathleen M. O'Sullivan â€“ KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com - PERKINS COIE. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Flam Sues in New York Over Violation of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP, et al. The case is styled as Yitzchok Flam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alltran Financial, LP, John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-02767 (E.D.N.Y., June 22, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Alltran Financial, formerly known as United Recovery Systems, is a debt collection agency. Alltran is hired by different companies to collect a debt from consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Refuses Refund of Ski Pass Fees, Simpson Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATT SIMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALTERRA MOUNTAIN COMPANY and IKON PASS INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01691 (D. Colo., June 10, 2020), seeks redress for the Defendants' refusal to refund fees after they closed all of their North American ski resorts, much earlier than the promised duration of the ski season. Alterra publicly announced on March 14, 2020, that due to the COVID-19 outbreak, as of March 15, 2020, all of its North American ski resorts would be closed until further notice. The Plaintiff says Alterra did not offer refunds to purchasers of the Passes based on their inability to use their Passes for the remainder of the 2019-20 ski season and have retained the Pass purchasers' payments. The Plaintiff contends that Alterra collected fees from skiers, snowboarders and others, but then deprived them of the promised "unlimited" skiing and snowboarding. The Defendants promised that the Ikon Pass provided "unlimited access at 14 iconic destinations" and also provided up to 7 days each at another 26 "select global destinations" with "no blackout dates." Mr. Simpson purchased an Ikon Base Pass from the Defendants for the 2019-20 season. He was prevented from using the entire value of his Ikon Base Pass as a result of the Alterra closure. Alterra owns and operates 15 North American ski resorts, including destinations, such as Squaw Valley, Alpine Meadows and Mammoth Mountain in California, Steamboat and Winter Park Resort in Colorado, Deer Valley Resort in Utah, and several others. The Defendants sell daily lift tickets, and also marketed and sold two types of passes for the 2019-20 season--the Ikon Pass and the Ikon Base Pass.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. Mickey L. Stevens, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com mstevens@gustafsongluek.com AMB CONSTRUCTION: Class in Kllogjeri Suit Certified --------------------------------------------------- In the case, ENDRIT KLLOGJERI and KUJTIM ISUFI, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by AMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by AMB CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiffs, v. AMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by AMB CONSTRUCTION, INC., and JOHN DOE BONDING COMPANY, Defendants, Docket No. 155544/16, Motion Seq. No. 003, 2020 NY Slip Op 30792, (N.Y. Sup.), Judge David Benjamin Cohen of the New York County Supreme Court granted the named Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In the action for failure to pay prevailing wages, the named Plaintiffs and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by Defendant AMB and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by AMB and John Doe Bonding, move, pursuant to CPLR 901 and 902, for an order seeking class certification of the action on behalf of all individuals who performed construction work on the Syosset High School roof replacement project for or on behalf of AMB during the summer of 2015. In 2015, AMB entered into a public work contract to perform construction work on the "Syosset Project" at the Syosset High School in Syosset, New York. Upon information and belief, a schedule of prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits containing the wage rates to be paid to the construction works was made a part of the public work contract. Under the public work contract, Defendant AMB was required to pay its workers prevailing wages and supplemental benefits for every hour the workers worked and furnished labor on the Project. The Plaintiffs maintain that AMB failed to pay the named Plaintiffs and the potential class members of the putative class the prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits for every hour worked, in addition to overtime compensation which the named Plaintiffs and potential class members were entitled to receive for the work they performed on the Project. The Plaintiffs submit the affidavits of the named Plaintiffs, in addition to three putative class members, Ergys Gjona, Enver Kllogjeri and Zeni Isufi (Plaintiffs exhibits B through F). All of the affiants worked for AMB on the Project during the summer of 2015. During their employment, the Plaintiffs were classified as "roofers," working from approximately 5:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. from five to seven days per week. Each of the affiants aver that AMB failed to pay the roofer the prevailing hourly wage rate and benefits rate for every hour worked, and that the other workers on the Project were also not paid the correct wages for work performed. Enver and Zeni aver that they were paid by check and that the checks grossly understated the amount of hours they worked per week. For example, AMB paid the two for 32 to 40 hours per week when they actually worked 60 or more hours per week. All of the affiants aver that at least 35 other individuals worked as roofers on the Project that summer, and have provided the court with the names of no less than 20 individuals who they could identify as roofers on the Project during the summer of 2015 (Plaintiff exhibit G). The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of members consisting of all individuals who performed construction work on the Syosset High School roof replacement project for or on behalf of AMB Construction, Inc. during the summer of 2015. In opposition, AMB states that although it disputes the merits of the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs, for purposes of the instant motion, AMB states that it entered into a construction contract with Syosset Central School District to perform roofing in connection with the Project known as "Partial Roofing Replacement at Syosset High School, Contract G-General Constr. Work." The Defendants submit no supporting affidavits to refute the facts as alleged by the Plaintiffs. Judge Cohen granted the named Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Judge granted leave pursuant to CPLR 901 and 902, for the Plaintiffs to prosecute the action on behalf of a class consisting of individuals employed by Defendant AMB and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by AMB and John Doe Bonding during the summer of 2015 who performed construction work on the Syosset High School roof replacement project for or on behalf of AMB, to recover wages and benefits which class members were entitled to receive for work they performed on these projects but did not receive. The Defendants are directed to furnish to the Plaintiffs' counsel a list of the names and last known addresses of all persons employed by AMB during the summer of 2015 who worked on the Syosset High School roof replacement project. The Plaintiffs will send a notice to all of the individuals identified by the Defendants and said notice will include a provision that each individual may "opt-out" of the class action, by sending a signed form to the Plaintiffs' counsel. The form of said notice will be approved by the Court. The notice will be translated into Spanish and Albanian by a legal translation service. The proposed notice will be sent to the counsel for the Defendants for comment, which will be submitted in writing to the opposing counsel and the Court. A compliance conference for the parties was scheduled, at which time the notice will be discussed, as well as any other issues including settlement. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/RELI2x from Leagle.com. APPLE INC: Faces $5MM Class Action Over In-App Purchases -------------------------------------------------------- Patently Apple reports that a new $5 million class action was filed against Apple on June 12 in the U.S. District Court in San Jose in a very important case relating to the promotion of video games that have in-app purchase mechanisms that are primarily aimed at children and addicted gamblers. Apple's iPhone and iPad are considered illegal "slot machines or devices" in California. In-app purchases in this case are deemed to be "Loot Boxes" or "Loot Crates." The issue is quickly becoming an issue in Europe with both Belgium and the U.K. now demanding that the government modernize its gambling laws to include "Loot Boxes" especially targeting children. While Apple legally tried to protect themselves by creating mild restrictions on its developers, the bottom line is that they allow this practice considered gambling, and more importantly, profit handsomely from "Loot Box" purchases, according to the pending Class Action. This type of Class Action is long overdue in the U.S. and will be an important one for the gaming industry as a whole. The Class Action begins with a quote from Tim Sweeney, Co-Founder of Epic Games as follows: "We should be very reticent of creating an experience where the outcome can be influenced by spending money. Loot boxes play on all the mechanics of gambling except for the ability to get more money out in the end. Do we want to be like Las Vegas, with slot machines or do we want to be widely respected as creators of products that customers can trust? We have businesses that profit by doing their customers harm." Nature of the Action The action filed on June 12, after the quote from Sweeney, begins with the "Nature of the Action" as follows in-part below. Any emphasis presented below in bold type or highlighter has been added by Patently Apple. The California legislature has declared: "Gambling can become addictive and is not an activity to be promoted or legitimized as entertainment for children and families." 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. Not unlike Big Tobacco's "Joe Camel" advertising campaign, Apple relies on creating addictive behaviors in kids to generate huge profits for the Company. Over the last four years, 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. Loot Boxes are purchased using real money, but are simply randomized chances within the game to obtain important or better weapons, costumes or player appearance (called "skins"), or some other in-game item or feature that is designed to enhance game-play. If obtained, these weapons, skins, and other items can help the player advance in the game and enhance the game playing experience. But buying a Loot Box is a gamble, because the player does not know what the Loot Box actually contains until it is opened. Unsurprisingly, the perceived best "loot" in the game is also the most difficult to obtain, and least likely to be received via Loot Box. Conversely, most items in the Loot Boxes tend to be "common" or undesirable to the player -- either because it is easily obtained or because the player already possesses the item. Some of these specific high-demand items in the game can be so difficult (and costly) to obtain that a "gray market" has sprung up on the internet -- websites where the game accounts and in some cases individual items can be (and are) bought and sold for real money outside of the game itself. Numerous websites have been created to broker these transactions, bringing buyer and seller together to sell these items and accounts, for real money outside of the game. 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. California's Penal Code broadly defines an unlawful "slot machine or device" as, a machine, apparatus, or device that is adapted, or may readily be converted, for use in a way that, as a result of the insertion of any piece of money or coin or other object, or by any other means, the machine or device is caused to operate or may be operated, and by reason of any element of hazard or chance or of other outcome of operation unpredictable by him or her, the user may receive or become entitled to receive any piece of money, credit, allowance, or thing of value, or additional chance or right to use the slot machine or device, or any check, slug, token, or memorandum, whether of value or otherwise, which may be exchanged for any money, credit, allowance, or thing of value, or which may be given in trade, irrespective of whether it may, apart from any element of hazard or chance or unpredictable outcome of operation, also sell, deliver, or present some merchandise, indication of weight, entertainment, or other thing of value. Governments, regulators, and psychologists, all agree that Loot Boxes like the ones in games 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. For instance, the Government of Belgium examined the use of Loot Boxes in various video games and determined that they violated that country's gambling laws, specifically finding, the paid loot boxes in the examined games Overwatch, FIFA 18 and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive fit the description of a game of chance because all of the constitutive elements of gambling are present (game, wager, chance, win/loss). Likewise, in September 2019, Great Britain Parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee issued a report to Parliament determining that Loot Boxes constitute gambling and encourage addictive behavior, and recommending that the sale of Loot Boxes to children should be banned. Committee Chair Damian Collins MP said: Loot boxes are particularly lucrative for games companies but come at a high cost, particularly for problem gamblers, while exposing children to potential harm. Buying a loot box is playing a game of chance and it is high time the gambling laws caught up. We challenge the Government to explain why loot boxes should be exempt from the Gambling Act. Similarly, psychologists who have studied the issue agree that Loot Boxes correlate with problem gambling, especially among adolescents. For example, one such survey analysis of current studies concluded, the findings are very consistent that there is an association between problem gambling and loot box buying among both adolescents and adults (and that the association may be even stronger among adolescents). Even Apple implicitly concedes the Loot Boxes in its App Store games are a form of gambling. Like the California state lottery, Apple requires its App Developers to disclose the "odds of winning" particular items in the Loot Boxes for the games it distributes. Apple's "App Store Review Guidelines" for App Developers states: Apps offering "loot boxes" or other mechanisms that provide randomized virtual items for purchase must disclose the odds of receiving each type of item to customers prior to purchase. 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." Causes for Action The Class Action consists of three specific actions as follows: Count 1: Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices in Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law Count 2: Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices in Violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act Count 3: Unjust Enrichment The graphic below is in-part from the digital court docket that illustrates that the lawsuit is for $5 million. Considering how lucrative the "Loot Box" mechanism and feature is to the gaming industry and to Apple specifically, it's surprising that the amount for this Class Action wasn't set much higher so as to inflict more pain on Apple. Apple likely makes $5 million a day on games and so, even if they lost, $5 million is chump change for Apple. The more important outcome of the Class Action would be to get a ruling from the court that the practice of including "loot boxes" in games on the App Store be deemed illegal. This would allow Apple to warn their gaming developers that all games in the future offering this feature would be disallowed on the App Store. [GN] APPLE INC: Settles GTAT Investor Class Action for $3.5 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hayward, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports that a six-year-old lawsuit -- filed in the ashes of the high-stakes failure of a New Hampshire tech company to manufacture iPhone screens -- is winding down, after holdout defendant Apple Inc. recently agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle claims. Other defendants, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the former chief executive of GTAT, have already pledged $36.7 million to investors who filed a class action suit in U.S. District Court in Concord. The lawsuit stems from the 2013 partnership that Apple and GTAT forged to create a durable, scratch-resistant glass screen from synthetic sapphire for iPhones. In December 2013, GTAT raised some $300 million in stock offerings and corporate debt after announcing its deal with Apple. Nine months later, Apple released its latest iPhone without the sapphire screen, causing the value of GTAT stock and corporate debt to plummet. Within a month, bankruptcy followed, and investors eventually filed suit against GTAT's top executives, including former chief executive Thomas Gutierrez, Apple and investment banks involved in the securities transactions. "(The) Lead Plaintiff in this case lost millions of dollars of hard-earned savings after investing in GTAT based on the company's statements that its deal with Apple was on track to be a great success, backed by Apple's considerable capital and expertise" wrote Lauren A. Ormsbee -- lauren@blbglaw.com -- a New York lawyer who represented the investors, in an email. "The opposite was true, and Lead Plaintiff and the rest of GTAT's investors suffered great financial harm," said Ormsbee, a partner with Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. The $40.2 million recovery is the third largest New Hampshire class action recovery in a securities lawsuit, she said. A final hearing on the settlement was set take place on June 15 in U.S. District Court in Concord. A lawyer representing the GTAT executives said the settlement amounts to about 4% of the $1.4 billion in alleged damages. That's about 2 percentage points less than similar settlements on average, wrote Boston lawyer Jordan D. Hershman -- jordan.hershman@morganlewis.com -- in an email. The settlements eliminated the need to defend the case, he said. He noted that the company's insurer covered the claim against GTAT executives and directors. None of the company officials had to contribute personally. And they never admitted to the allegations. "These settlements evidence the weakness, not the strength, of the claims and allegations that the Plaintiffs made in that case," wrote Hershman, the leader of securities litigation at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. "At bottom, there was no securities fraud here," he wrote. Filings chart the course of the company's high-tech, high-wire investment run in 2013 and 2014. In the middle of 2013, GTAT stock was selling for between $3 and $4 per share, thanks to downturns in the solar industry, which it relied on for most of its business. In November 2013, it announced the Apple deal. Apple would pay GTAT $578 million and provide a 1.3 million square-foot manufacturing facility in Arizona. Plans called for 2,000 GTAT furnaces to produce the sapphire. GTAT stock price jumped 20% in one day, and by August 2014 the stock was selling at $18.60 a share. It was a good time to sell if you held GTAT stock. Chief Executive Gutierrez made $10.6 million off the sale of 700,000 shares; Vice President and Chief Counsel Hoil Kim sold nearly 60% of his holdings and pocketed $4 million, according to filings. Gutierrez repeatedly ensured investors of progress in the Apple deal. Then in September, Apple unveiled its new iPhone 6 with screens made of Corning's ion-strengthened Gorilla Glass, not GTAT's sapphire screens. GTAT declared bankruptcy Oct. 6, 2014. Its common stock price dropped to 80 cents a share. The value of its corporate notes fell 70% in a single day. The lawsuit said that GTAT executives later admitted they were out of options when they signed the Apple deal, that Apple dictated all the terms, and the agreement shifted all the risk to GTAT. And while company executives were touting the ability to create large crystal logs of sapphire, managers were warning them that they could not meet the demands in the Apple contract, filings read. An order by Judge Joseph Laplante quotes an unnamed GTAT sapphire product manager who said GTAT could not even produce a 165 kilogram log when it signed the Apple contract. The Apple contract called for sapphire logs of 262 kilograms, but GTAT began research into that benchmark only five days before the Apple deal was announced. The manager said that goal was light years away and quit at the end of 2013, according to the order. Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission fined Gutierrez $143,000, saying he misled investors about the company's ability to supply the sapphire glass for the iPhones. Defendant lawyer Hershman said the management team devoted everything they had to the project and believed it would succeed. Apple remained committed to GT's sapphire glass until the day the company filed a strategic bankruptcy, he said. Apple was both surprised and disappointed. "It was tragic that the project failed, and it was unfortunate that all stockholders in GT (including the GT Defendants) incurred losses on their GT stock," he said. Judge Laplante rejected most claims against Apple. But in 2017 he agreed to hear testimony about the control that Apple had over GTAT, opening up the prospect of extended litigation for the California-based company. "To be sure, plaintiffs' allegations of Apple's control are thin," Laplante wrote at the time. But it was enough to move forward, he said. Apple has countered by saying that it invested millions -- the exact amount is redacted in court documents -- in sapphire and would only do so expecting success. "Apple believed the project would lead to "an epic metamorphosis" for both manufactured sapphire and mobile phones," Apple lawyers wrote in 2019. Meanwhile, GTAT lives on. It emerged from bankruptcy in 2016 as a private company, and its involvement in the court case ended in 2018, said company spokesman Chris Van Veen in an email. The new GTAT has no relationship with Gutierrez or any other defendants named in the lawsuit. "From a cost and resource perspective, we are pleased to have all ancillary matters relating to the prior bankruptcy behind us," he said. Its main products are silicon carbide, a high-demand substrate material for semiconductors, which it manufactures in New Hampshire. It also manufactures sapphire in Massachusetts in large sizes, a market niche it has to itself, he said. GTAT has 118 employees worldwide with other locations in Montana, China and Taiwan. [GN] AR RESOURCES: Knight Sues in New Jersey Over Violation of FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AR RESOURCES, INC., et al. The case is styled as Marquita Knight aka Fleming, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AR RESOURCES, INC., John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-07495-JMV-MF (D.N.J., June 19, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. AR Resources, Inc., is a national debt collection company that specializes in collection solutions for business to business, consumer, property management and healthcare debt recovery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com ARROW SCRAP: Matute Seeks Proper Wage for Machine Operators ----------------------------------------------------------- EDIN MATUTE individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated Plaintiff, -v- ROBERTO GALINDO and ARROW SCRAP CORP. AND ALLIED SCRAP LLC. (DBA AS ARROW SCRAPS) jointly and severally, Case No. 0:20-cv-02752 (E.D.N.Y, June 21, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to remedy Defendants' wrongful withholding of his lawfully earned wages compensation, for violations of minimum wage compensation requirements, and failure of Defendants to comply with notice and record-keeping requirements. Plaintiff Matute was employed by Defendants as a heavy scrap metal machine operator from 2008 until May 2020. According to the complaint, Defendants required Plaintiff to work and never compensated him for his work at the lawful overtime rate. Plaintiffs were never provided with any wage statements, time sheets, or other documents showing the number of hours each had worked every week nor provided with a wage notice at the time of hire or at any point thereafter, noting her hourly wage increases. As a result of the Defendants' violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs, and the Collective Action Members have suffered damages by being denied wages at or exceeding the statutory minimum in accordance with the FLSA in amounts to be determined at trial and are thus entitled to recovery of such amounts, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other compensation. Arrow Scrap Corp. is a New York-based environmental services company which provides scrap metal, electronics and computer component recycling, as well as data destruction and de-installation services. Allied Scrap LLC is an environmental services company based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 E-mail: LS@StillmanLegalPC.com ASIAN MOON: Zhang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Chengcheng Zhang, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASIAN MOON RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a ASIAN MOON, VICKIE S LI, SHERRY LI, Case No. 1:20-cv-02776 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act, and of New York Labor Law arising from their various unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices. The Plaintiff also seeks to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, unlawful retention of tips, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including the Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, as well as failing to provide their employees, including the Plaintiff, with wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a waiter at the Defendants' restaurant. The Defendant operates a restaurant under the name of Asian Moon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jiajing Fan, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718) 353-8588 Fax: (718) 353-6288 Email: jfan@hanglaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Illegally Collects Insurance Fees, Basli Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA BASLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-04063 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Homeowner's Protection Action of 1998, and the New York General Business Law Sec. 349, and for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly-situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant purposely failed to provide borrowers with an annual written statement that could notify them about the status of their Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI) and their right to cancel it. The Defendant also misrepresented to borrowers the amount of time the Defendant could continue to collect PMI from their accounts after the loan qualified for PMI cancellation. As a result of the Defendant's omissions and misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered significant losses due to the illegal collection of monthly PMI fees from their accounts, in some cases for over a year or more. Bank of America, N.A. is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company with its principal office located at Bank of America Corporate Center, 100 North Tryon, Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rick S. Cowle, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RICK S. COWLE, P.C. 18 Fair Street Carmel, NY 10512 Telephone: (845) 225-3026 Facsimile: (845) 225-3027 E-mail: RCowlelaw@comcast.net BANK OF AMERICA: Leyse Appeals Decision in TCPA Suit to 3rd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Mark Leyse filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Mark Leyse v. Bank of America NA, Case 2-11-cv-07128, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 22, 2020, 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 appellate case is captioned as Mark Leyse v. Bank of America NA, Case No. 20-1666, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MARK LEYSE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. 119-40 Union Turnpike Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 520-7125 Facsimile: (856) 997-9193 E-mail: tbank@toddbanklaw.com - and - Greg M. Kohn, Esq. NAGEL RICE 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 E-mail: gkohn@nagelrice.com Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA NA is represented by: David J. Fioccola, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 468-4069 E-mail: dfioccola@mofo.com BANNER BANK: Court OKs Proposed Class Notice in Bolding Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Proposed Class Notification in the case captioned KELLY BOLDING, et al., Plaintiff, v. BANNER BANK, Defendants, Case No. C17-0601RSL, (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiffs sought permission to tell class members that the named plaintiffs are pursuing class claims for (1) wages owed for unpaid compensable work, (2) unpaid overtime, and (3) wages, damages, and penalties for missed rest/meal breaks and inaccurate wage statements. The parties agree, and plaintiffs' proposed class notice correctly informs class members, that the compensable work for which class-wide relief is sought includes work performed during rest or meal periods. To the extent the notice promises class members that the named plaintiffs will seek class-wide relief other than compensation for all hours worked at straight or overtime rates, it exceeds the class certification order. The Court finds that a class notice in the proposed form, mailed and emailed to each class members' last known addresses, is appropriate. Plaintiffs' counsel shall, within 60 days of the issuance of the notice, provide defendant with a list of recipients who have opted out of the class. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 18, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yarytrke from Leagle.com. BATON ROUGE, LA: Belton Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CLIFTON BELTON, JR., JERRY BRADLEY, CEDRIC FRANKLIN, CHRISTOPHER ROGERS, JOSEPH WILLIAMS, WILLIE SHEPHERD, DEVONTE STEWART, CEDRIC SPEARS, DEMOND HARRIS, and FORREST HARDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHERIFF SID GAUTREAUX, in his official capacity as Sheriff of East Baton Rouge; LT. COL. DENNIS GRIMES, in his official capacity as Warden of the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison; CITY OF BATON ROUGE/PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00278-BAJ-SDJ (Filed M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying one class with three subclasses as follows: Jail Class: "all current and future persons detained at the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic"; Pre-trial Subclass: "all members of the Jail Class who have not yet been convicted of the offense for which they are currently held in the jail"; Post-Conviction Subclass: "all members of the Jail Class who have been sentenced to serve time in the jail or who are otherwise in the jail as the result of an offense for which they have already been convicted"; and Medically Vulnerable Subclass: "all members of the Jail Class who are also sixty-five years old or older, or who, regardless of age, experience an underlying medical condition that places them at particular risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19, including but not limited to (a) lung disease, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g. bronchitis or emphysema), or other chronic conditions associated with impaired lung function; (b) heart disease, such as congenital heart disease, congestive heart failure, and coronary artery disease; (c) chronic liver or kidney disease (including hepatitis and dialysis patients); (d) diabetes or other endocrine disorders; (e) epilepsy; (f) hypertension; (g) compromised immune systems (such as from cancer, HIV, receipt of an organ or bone marrow transplant, as a side effect of medication, or other autoimmune disease); (h) blood disorders (including sickle cell disease); (i) inherited metabolic disorders; (j) history of stroke; (k) severe obesity (a body mass index above 40); and/or (l) a current or recent (last two weeks) pregnancy"; 2. appointing Plaintiffs Clifton Belton Jr., Jerry Bradley, Cedric Franklin, Christopher Rogers, Joseph Williams, Willie Shepherd, Devonte Stewart, Cedric Spears, Demond Harris, and Forrest Hardy as Class Representatives for the Jail Class; 3. appointing Plaintiffs Clifton Belton Jr., Christopher Rogers, Joseph Williams, Willie Shepherd, Devonte Stewart, Cedric Spears, Demond Harris, and Forrest Hardy as Class Representatives for the Pre-trial Class; 4. appointing Plaintiffs Jerry Bradley and Cedric Franklin as Class Representatives for the Post-Conviction Class; and 5. appointing Plaintiffs Clifton Belton, Jr., Cedric Franklin, and Willie Shepherd as Class Representatives for the Medically Vulnerable Class; and 6. appointing their attorneys as class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). This class action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to require the Defendants to implement procedures that provide basic, reasonable protective measures and medical care for the Plaintiffs to keep them reasonably healthy and safe from contracting the novel coronavirus and its resulting disease, COVID-19, while in custody. It also seeks a writ of habeas corpus ordering the immediate release of certain people with underlying medical conditions (constituting one of the subclasses) making them so vulnerable to COVID-19 that no procedures could be implemented quickly or successfully enough to protect them. East Baton Rouge Parish is the most populous parish in the U.S. state of Louisiana.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Utter, Esq. William R. Claiborne, Esq. FAIR FIGHT INITIATIVE 410 East Bay Street Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (912) 236-9559 Facsimile: (912) 236-1884 E-mail: david@fairfightinitative.org will@fairfightinitative.org - and - Lillian S. Hardy, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5884 Telephone E-mail: lillian.hardy@hoganlovells.com - and - Thomas B. Harvey, Esq. Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq. Tiffany Yang, Esq. ADVANCEMENT PROJECT NATIONAL OFFICE 1220 L Street NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 728-9557 E-mail: tharvey@advancementproject.org mnemeth@advancementproject.org tyang@advancementproject.org - and - William P. Quigley, Esq. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS 7214 St. Charles Avenue Campus Box 902 New Orleans, LA 70117 - and - Baher Azmy, Esq. Omar Farah, Esq. Brittany Thomas, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 11201 Telephone: (212) 614-6427 E-mail: bazmy@ccrjustice.org ofarah@ccrjustice.org bthomas@ccrjustice.org The Defendants are represented by: Michael P. Schillage, Esq. OFFICE OF THE EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH ATTORNEY 222 St. Louis Street, Suite 902 Baton Rouge, LA 70803 E-mail: MSchillage@brla.gov - and - Catherine St. Pierre, Esq. ERLINGSON BANKS, PLLC One American Place 301 Main Street Suite 2110 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 E-mail: cstpierre@erlingsonbanks.com BERNIE 2020: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Buller et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ JACOB BULLER; and CODY OLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BERNIE 2020 INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-01368-ECT-TNL (D. Minn., June 15, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Bernie 2020 Inc. was the official candidate committee that facilitated and financially supported Bernie Sander's campaign for office. Bernie 2020 is registered with the Federal Elections Commission. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com BIRMINGHAM, AL: Attorneys' Fees Award in Securities Suit Upheld --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT AND RELIEF SYSTEM, CITY OF BIRMINGHAM FIREMEN'S AND POLICEMEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION SYSTEM, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Lead Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JOHN W. DAVIS, Objector-Appellant, Case No. 19-1378-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Objector-Appellant John W. Davis appeals from an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the securities fraud class action, in which the parties reached a settlement agreement resulting in a $50 million Settlement Fund. Following a hearing, the District Court overruled Davis' objection seeking to limit attorneys' fees to the unenhanced lodestar and awarded attorneys' fees as a percent of the Fund, plus $435,998.92 in expenses, and interest. On appeal, Davis' primary argument is that the District Court failed to apply any presumption in favor of using the unenhanced lodestar as a reasonable and adequate fee award. The Second Circuit rejects the argument. The presumption in favor of the lodestar and the restrictions on lodestar multipliers that apply to fee awards made pursuant to fee-shifting statutes do not apply in common fund cases like this one. Under the common fund doctrine, district courts have discretion to apply either the lodestar method or the percentage-of-recovery method to calculate a reasonable fee. The District Court used the percentage-of-recovery method, under which it had discretion to award a fee less than, equal to, or greater than the lodestar, based on its consideration of six factors: the time and labor expended by the counsel; the complexity of the litigation; the risk of the litigation; the quality of representation; the fee requested in relation to the recovery under the settlement; and public policy. Accordingly, the District Court was under no obligation to treat the unenhanced lodestar as the presumptive fee. Davis also argues that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to adequately state the reasons for its fee award. The Second Circuit rejects the argument as well. Far from giving "no reasons" for its decision, Jones v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., the District Court held a fairness hearing during which it heard arguments about the fee request, provided its reasons for rejecting Davis' objection, and issued a written fee order stating its conclusions with respect to the relevant factors. Finally, Davis argues that the District Court exceeded its discretion in awarding the fee in this case based on the record. Davis does not contest, however, that the record included submissions detailing more than 10,000 hours expended by the Plaintiffs' counsel, a complicated procedural and factual history, difficult legal issues, and a settlement amount that was statistically above-average. On this record, the Second Circuit cannot say that the District Court exceeded its considerable discretion in awarding attorneys' fees. The Second Circuit has considered Davis' remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. In sum, the Second Circuit upholds the judgment of the District Court. A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's March 17, 2020 Amended Summary Order is available at https://is.gd/8aFtKt from Leagle.com. BLAUER MANUFACTURING: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blauer Manufacturing Co., Inc. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Blauer Manufacturing Co., Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04393-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Blauer designs apparel. The Company provides shirts, pants, safety vests, outerwear, and footwear, as well as offers accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com BLUE BRIDGE: Underpays Staff, Daniel Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------- BRANDON DANIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE BRIDGE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00020324 (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 15, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Daniel was employed by the Defendants as non exempt employee. Blue Bridge Hospitality Management, LLC is a California limited liability company, engaged in the restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Sullivan, Esq. Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. William G. Anderson, Esq. SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-6760 Facsimile: (619) 702-6761 E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com ganderson@sullivanlawgroupapc.com BOB'S DISCOUNT: Underpays Deliverymen, Mendez and Jimenez Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- DAMIAN MENDEZ, JOSE ANTONIO MARTINEZ JIMENEZ On behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, NEHDS LOGISTICS LLC, ABC CORPS., and JANE & JOHN DOES, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00849-RNC (D. Conn., June 19, 2020) is a class action lawsuit against Defendants after Plaintiffs and Class Members were denied substantial legally required compensation and/or overtime payments given that Plaintiffs and Class Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Wage and Hour Act. Although Plaintiffs worked as deliverymen approximately 70 hours or more per week during their employment for Defendants, Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs time and a half their regular hourly wage for hours worked over 40 hours, a violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and the WHA. Defendants also improperly shifted expenses onto the Plaintiffs by requiring Plaintiffs to pay for uniforms to be worn while making deliveries. The uniforms were sold from an in-house store at the NEHDS facility in Monroe, Connecticut where the deliverymen reported every morning. Defendants also improperly shifted expenses onto the Plaintiffs by requiring Plaintiffs to pay the cost for any furniture damaged during the course of deliveries. Bob’s Discount Furniture, LLC is in the business of selling furniture to customers and operates stores and locations in the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. NEHDS Logistics, LLC is a Connecticut-based delivery company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald Jeremiah Trella, Esq. GRADY & RILEY, LLP 86 Buckingham St., Waterbury, CT 06710 Telephone: (203) 575-1131 Facsimile: (203) 754-1675 E-mail: dtrella@gradyriley.com BP SOLAR: Court Orders Class Settlement Website Update in Allagas ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order directing parties in the case captioned MICHAEL ALLAGAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BP SOLAR INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-00560-SI, (N.D. Cal.), to update the Class Settlement Website immediately. The parties filed a joint stipulation for final approval of the addendum to the class settlement agreement. The Court has reviewed the parties' papers, along with the declarations of David Birka-White, Jeanne Finegan, and Jennifer Keough. The settlement administrator has received no opt-out requests and no objections to the proposed settlement addendum. The Court tentatively intends to approve the joint stipulation for final approval of the settlement addendum as well as the motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards. However, the Court notes several discrepancies among the documents filed with the Court and the notice provided to the public. The short form notice published in various media outlets indicated that the period for filing claims for Category Two solar panels was extended to July 21, 2020 (from the original end date of February 6, 2020). However, the class settlement website indicates on the home page and in the FAQ's that as of February 7, 2020, new claims filed that prove to have Category 2 panels will no longer be remediated. The Court hereby ORDERS that the parties update the class settlement website immediately to reflect the extended claims period for Category 2 panels and that the parties honor claims for Category 2 panels filed through July 21, 2020. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 18, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybeazrd3 from Leagle.com BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in Savino Detainee Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Respondents THOMAS M. HODGSON, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Celimen Savino, et al. v. Hodgson, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10617-WGY, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a motion for class certification. The named Petitioners are two of approximately 148 individuals detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") on civil immigration charges and held at the Bristol County House of Corrections ("BCHOC") in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts. The Detainees are held in two on-site facilities: 92 are in a separate ICE facility called the C. Carlos Carreiro Immigration Detention Center, and the rest are housed in a portion of the BHCOC called "Unit B" together with non-immigration pre-trial detainees. The Detainees assert that they find it impossible to maintain the recommended distance of 6 feet from others and they must also share or touch objects used by others. They have provided affidavits from two physicians who have recently visited Detainees on site. Dr. Nathan Praschan of Massachusetts General Hospital states that the best-known methods of preventing infectious spread, such as social distancing, frequent hand washing, and sanitation of surfaces are unavailable to the Detainees, who sleep, eat, and recreate in extremely close quarters and do not have access to basic hygienic supplies. Dr. Matthew Gartland of Brigham and Women's Hospital avers that based on his own experience visiting Bristol County House of Corrections, he does not believe that the Detainees, can be adequately protected from the virus that causes COVID-19. This is based on a lack of private sinks or showers and inadequate hand soap supplies, and hand sanitizers, as well as inadequate allowance for social distancing, screening for symptoms and exposure to the virus, testing of individuals with symptoms, and appropriate quarantine and isolation facilities. The Detainees filed a habeas petition as a putative class action in the Court on March 27, 2020. The petition asserts two claims: (1) violation of due process as a result of confinement in conditions that include the imminent risk of contracting COVID-19; and (2) violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for failure to provide reasonable accommodations, in the form of protection against COVID-19, to the Detainees with medical conditions. On the same day, the Detainees filed a motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"), and a motion for class certification. As these motions refer only to the due process claim, the Detainees do not seek a TRO or class certification for their claim under the Rehabilitation Act. The Government has opposed both motions. The Court held an initial hearing on March 30, 2020, converting the motion for a TRO into a motion for a preliminary injunction. At the next hearing, on April 2, 2020, the Court provisionally certified five subclasses and took the other matters under advisement. The following day, the Court held another hearing at which it was informed that the Government voluntarily agreed to release six members of the first subclass. The Court deemed the case moot as to those individuals, ordered release on bail under certain conditions for three other members of the subclass, and either denied bail without prejudice or continued the matter for the rest of the subclass. It notified the parties that it would consider bail for fifty additional detainees, and later set a schedule for considering those 50 individual bail applications at a rate of ten per day beginning on April 7, 2020. It has since ordered bail for several more Detainees. The appellate case is captioned as Celimen Savino, et al. v. Hodgson, et al., Case No. 20-1564, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing Statement, Transcript Report/Order form, and Appearance form are due on July 1, 2020.[BN] Petitioners-Appellees MARIA ALEJANDRA CELIMEN SAVINO, and all those similarly situated; and JULIO CESAR MEDEIROS NEVES, and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Muneer I. Ahmad, Esq. Reena Parikh, Esq. Michael J. Wishnie, Esq. YALE LAW SCHOOL PO Box 209090 127 Wall St. New Haven, CT 06520-9090 Telephone: (203) 432-4716 E-mail: muneer.ahmad@yale.edu reena.parikh@yale.edu michael.wishnie@yale.edu - and - Rama S. Attreya, Esq. Michael J. Brown, Esq. John Joseph Butts, Esq. Annaleigh Elizabeth Curtis, Esq. Nicole M. Fontaine Dooley, Esq. Elizabeth E. Driscoll, Esq. Felicia H. Ellsworth, Esq. Vinita Ferrera, Esq. Mikayla C. Foster, Esq. Gary B. Howell-Walton, Esq. Lisa Pirozzolo, Esq. WILMERHALE LLP 60 State St. Boston, MA 02109-0000 Telephone: (617) 526-6347 E-mail: RAMA.ATTREYA@WILMERHALE.COM MIKE.BROWN@WILMERHALE.COM JOHN.BUTTS@WILMERHALE.COM ANNALEIGH.CURTIS@WILMERHALE.COM NICOLE.FONTAINEDOOLEY@WILMERHALE.COM ELIZABETH.DRISCOLL@WILMERHALE.COM FELICIA.ELLSWORTH@WILMERHALE.COM VINITA.FERRERA@WILMERHALE.COM MIKAYLA.FOSTER@WILMERHALE.COM GARY.HOWELL-WALTON@WILMERHALE.COM LISA.PIROZZOLO@WILMERHALE.COM - and - Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Esq. Oren Nimni, Esq. Oren McCleary Sellstrom, Esq. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS 61 Batterymarch St., 5th Flr. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 482-1145 Facsimile: (617) 482-4392 E-mail: office@lawyersforcivilrights.org Respondents-Appellants THOMAS M. HODGSON, in his official capacity as Bristol County Sheriff; STEVEN J. SOUZA, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Bristol County House of Corrections; TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Boston Field Office of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement; CHAD F. WOLF, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Department of Homeland Security; MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, in his official capacity as Deputy DIrector and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the DIrector for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT are represented by: Thomas E. Kanwit, Esq. Donald Campbell Lockhart, Esq. Michael P. Sady, Esq. US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1 Courthouse Way, Ste. 9200 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 748-3271 Interested Party RICK RAEMISCH is represented by: William W. Fick, Esq. FICK & MARX LLP 24 Federal St., 4th Flr. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (857) 321-8360 E-mail: wfick@fickmarx.com CALOP BUSINESS: Denies Earned Wages and OT Pay, Fernandez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTUAN FERNANDEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself, all other Aggrieved Employees, and the general public v. CALOP BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV21789 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 9, 2020), seeks civil penalties under the California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act. The lawsuit challenges the Defendants' employment practices with respect to their non-exempt hourly workers employed in the State of California, based on the Defendants' policy and practice of denying earned wages, including overtime pay, by way of unlawful rounding and failing to comply with the mandated provisions of the Living Wage Ordinance. Mr. Fernandez worked for the Defendants in the role of a Security Guard, in Los Angeles County, California. Calop is in the office equipment industry in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Katrina Castillo Espina, Esq. Alfred Movsesyan, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 547-5300 Facsimile: (818) 547-5678 E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com katrina@boyamianlaw.com alfred@boyamianlaw.com CAMC HEALTH: Court Dismisses A.H. Suit Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Irene C. Berger of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, dismissed without prejudice the case, A.H., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAMC HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00858 (S.D. W. Va.), for lack of a justiciable controversy. The action stems from a class action filed by the Plaintiffs in state court, currently pending as Civil Action No. 16-C-497 before the Hon. Jennifer F. Bailey. In the underlying class action, the Plaintiffs assert claims against CAMC Health System, Inc., or Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc., for harassment and discrimination based upon allegations that the putative class of female patients of CAMC were subjected to nonconsensual vaginal and breast examinations by Dr. Steven R. Matulis, M.D., while the patients were present in CAMC's Endoscopy Suite. In addition to claims concerning sexual harassment and discrimination, the Plaintiffs also assert claims for violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act, invasion of privacy, and all claims for which coverage under the Not-For-Profit Select Insurance Policy, issued by Zurich American Insurance Co. (Zurich) to CAMC, may apply. The Plaintiffs further assert that Defendant CAMC is the Policyholder and named insured under the terms and provisions of the insurance policy issued by Zurich with effective dates of coverage from May 1, 2015 to May 1, 2016. They assert that the claims and allegations in the underlying class action are within the scope of the coverage of the Zurich Policy, in that the alleged misconduct arises out of an "error, misstatement, misleading statement, act, omission, neglect or breach of duty" by CAMC for actual or alleged violation of any law or public policy concerning discrimination or harassment" as defined in the Policy. In the present action, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment from the Court that Zurich is obligated under the terms of an insurance policy, issued by Zurich to CAMC, to provide liability and/or indemnity coverage to CAMC. They also ask that the Court enters a Declaratory Judgment Order declaring that Zurich must pay all damages, if any, assessed against CAMC based upon said allegations subject to the terms and conditions of the subject Policy. Defendant Zurich has filed a motion to realign Defendant CAMC as a Plaintiff and to amend the caption in the action. As an initial matter, however, the Court must determine that a justiciable case or controversy exists, since it goes to the Court's very power to preside over the case. Judge Berger concludes that the Plaintiffs do not have third-party standing to assert the rights of CAMC in the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs currently have suffered no ascertainable injury. They do not have a close relationship with CAMC—in fact, they are directly adverse to CAMC in the underlying class action lawsuit. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for finding that the Plaintiffs will effectively vindicate the rights of CAMC. Additionally, there is no alleged hinderance to CAMC bringing an action on its own behalf. If CAMC wishes to pursue an action to have its rights declared under the applicable insurance policy, it could certainly do so. Therefore, because there is no actual, existing justiciable controversy under the Declaratory Judgments Act, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter, and it must be dismissed. After careful consideration, Judge Berger dismissed without prejudice the case, and struck from the docket. She terminated as moot all the pending motions. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/ZZYG8b from Leagle.com. A. H. & Adriana Flemming, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by C. Benjamin Salango -- bsalango@wvlawyer.com -- PRESTON & SALANGO, David H. Carriger -- dcarriger@calwelllaw.com -- CALWELL LUCE DITRAPANO, Holly G. DiCocco -- hgd@bertholdlaw.com -- BERTHOLD LAW FIRM, L. Dante DiTrapano -- dditrapano@cldlaw.com -- CALWELL LUCE DITRAPANO, Marvin W. Masters -- prodjackson27@yahoo.com -- THE MASTERS LAW FIRM, P. Rodney Jackson , LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON & Robert V. Berthold, Jr. -- rvb@bertholdlaw.com -- BERTHOLD LAW FIRM. CAMC Health System, Inc., doing business as Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark A. Colantonio, FITZSIMMONS LAW FIRM. Zurich American Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Charles R. Bailey -- cbailey@baileywyant.com -- BAILEY & WYANT, Josef A. Horter -- jhorter@baileywyant.com -- BAILEY & WYANT, Joseph M. Ward -- jward@fbtlaw.com -- FROST BROWN TODD, Michael R. Carlson, HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN & SCHILLER, pro hac vice, Ronald P. Schiller, HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN & SCHILLER, pro hac vice & William M. Swann -- wswann@fbtlaw.com -- FROST BROWN TODD. Zurich American Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Charles R. Bailey, BAILEY & WYANT, Josef A. Horter, BAILEY & WYANT, Joseph M. Ward, FROST BROWN TODD, Michael R. Carlson, HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN & SCHILLER, Ronald P. Schiller, HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL PUDLIN & SCHILLER & William M. Swann, FROST BROWN TODD. CANADA: Families of Nova Scotia Mass Shooting Victims Sue RCMP -------------------------------------------------------------- Aya Al-Hakim, writing for Global News, reports that the families of three people who were killed in the Nova Scotia mass shooting have launched a class-action lawsuit against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), alleging the police force failed to protect their loved ones from the gunman in the rampage on April 18 and 19, 2020. Tyler Edison Blair and Andrew Frederick O'Brien, the proposed representative plaintiffs in the case, filed the claim in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on June 16, according to Patterson Law, the firm representing the families. The proposed class action alleges that even though the RCMP knew that a gunman with a prior history of violence was on the loose in Portapique, N.S., the police force failed to protect the public from the shooter and failed to adequately warn the public about the active shooter situation, in part because it didn't issue a warning on the province-wide "Alert-ready" emergency system. The suit names as a defendant the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the RCMP, and lawyers for the plaintiffs have filed a notice of action that says they also want to add the province of Nova Scotia as a defendant. "Blair and O'Brien . . . plead that the Class Members and those killed by (the gunman) were vulnerable members of society who relied exclusively on (the RCMP) and (the provincial government) for police services," the claim states. Plaintiff Tyler Blair is the son of Greg Blair and the stepson of Jamie Blair, both of whom were killed in the shooting. Plaintiff Andrew O'Brien is the widower of another victim in the shooting, Heather O'Brien. All three victims, along with 19 others, were killed at the hands of the gunman during a shooting rampage that started in Portapique, N.S., in April. In a statement, Patterson Law said the action was brought Attorney General of Canada on June 16 on behalf of the estates of the deceased victims and their survivors. The proposed class would include the families of all shooting victims, as well as those who suffered personal injury or property damage during the attack. According to a statement from the law firm, the case alleges the RCMP failed to send "timely and appropriate warnings" to members of the affected communities, failed to request the help of Truro Police, and failed to properly investigate and secure the perimeter of the crime scene at Portapique. The lawsuit also claims punitive damages against the RCMP for its handling of the investigation after the fact. The claim states the RCMP released the automobile of a deceased family member after the investigation with gun casings and body parts still in the vehicle. "The family members were left to clean the automobiles themselves. (The suit) also alleges the RCMP misled the public when it confirmed that no one was pulled over by the replica RCMP cruiser," the law firm stated. There are also claims the RCMP allowed information related to family members' deaths to be released to other persons before proper notification to the families, including information that was distributed on social media. The lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, Sandra McCulloch, says the case could produce new documents or evidence about the shooting that have not been made public before. "When any lawsuit is advanced, the parties involved are entitled to disclosure from the other parties involved of any and all information they have that is relevant to the claims or defences that are made, and this process isn't any different," said McCulloch, who works at Patterson Law. "So there will be further information that comes forward that responds to the allegations and to any defences, and that will hopefully bring to light a lot more answers to the questions that remain outstanding," she added. Examples of new information that could come to light include any electronic documents, call logs, records, police reports or notes not previously revealed to the public. "There's a lot of frustration among the different families about the nature of the information they're getting and when they're getting it. Some of the answers, as I indicated earlier, are quite unsatisfactory and don't necessarily accord with the information that these individuals do have," McCulloch said. "They're certainly frustrated, and it's complicating their own grieving process, so hopefully through this process, we'll be able to remedy some of these issues and help the families forward." McCulloch also said the lawsuit would not be expected to have any impact on a public inquiry into the shooting if they were to be conducted simultaneously. The lawsuit must be certified by a judge as a class action before it can proceed as a class action, and that could take between six and 12 months. "There's a lot of moving parts here, some of which include what prior knowledge may or may not have been out there about the gunman, how the response occurred on the ground, what decisions were made, what decisions were not made, what decisions ought to have been made," McCulloch said "But there's a good deal of information out there that certainly leaves open for question -- if not casts some doubt -- on the appropriateness of those decisions, and that's what this process is going to explore." Global News has sent an e-mail to Nova Scotia RCMP about the lawsuit, but the police force did not immediately respond to the request for comment. [GN] CANADA: Indian Day School Settlement Forms "Misleading" Survivors ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anna Desmarais, writing for CBC News, reports that a former N.W.T. Metis council president alleges that day school settlement forms are "misleading" survivors away from the rightful money they deserve. The 15-page Indian day school class action settlement form divides compensation into five levels that is based on the kind of harm that any one student faced. Ken Hudson, the former Fort Smith Metis Council local president, said everyone he knows is quickly filling out the form for the lowest amount of compensation owed -- because the form does not explicitly spell out how much money should be compensated for common expressions of abuse, like belt strappings. "It's just rubbing salt in the wound," Hudson told CBC. "They harm you once, and then they harm you again because of the wording." The schools, also called federal day schools, operated separately from residential schools but were operated by many of the same groups that ran residential schools, from the 1860s to the 1990s. The nationwide class action settlement offers former students a range of compensation of up to $200,000, based on abuse suffered while attending the schools. 'Can't they simplify it?' The form asks former students at the first level of compensation if they were mocked for their Indigenous heritage, received threats or were the victims of "unreasonable or disproportionate acts of discipline or punishment." If they check 'yes,' the recipient gets $10,000 without having to provide any additional documentation. Survivors who check off any of the other levels of compensation, which range from $50,000 to $200,000, need to provide extensive documentation to support their claim, including proof of their attendance at a day school, a written narrative of what happened to them, the names of those who abused them, family testimonies, and any medical records with lists of injuries that happened at the school. If survivors don't have the necessary documents, they can fill out a sworn declaration, where they state that everything in the claims form is true to the best of their knowledge. This statement must be witnessed and signed by a guarantor as well. The claims are then reviewed by the Canadian government and the claims administrator. Hudson said survivors who live in small towns like Fort Smith talk to each other about how much money they are applying for. When one person says they will be applying for the lowest level of $10,000, Hudson said, many others are likely to follow suit because they believe that's all they're owed. "They're working with all Indigenous people here," he said. "Can't they simplify it to say 'did you get strapped?'" More time to revise claims needed Jeannie Marie-Jewell has helped over 300 survivors in her hometown of Fort Smith by hosting day school settlement information sessions and one-on-one appointments. She said the settlement process is difficult for many of her fellow survivors, who initially want to fill out the form for the $10,000 to get it over with, but then after reflecting on their experiences, decide to provide more information for a bigger settlement. On June 11, the claims administrator said they would no longer be accepting revised claims -- something that Marie-Jewell said needs to be reversed immediately. "When they sit down and they think and they talk to others, they come to recognize that they didn't claim properly and they want to claim properly," Marie-Jewell said. "The deadline is not until July 2022, why didn't they leave it until at least a year? I just don't understand." In a statement to CBC North, the settlement class counsel from Gowling WLG reminded survivors that they can ask for free one-on-one support or join an online workshop to get help. They reminded survivors to take their time filling out the form, because all settlements are only due by July 13, 2022. "We know that, after waiting many years for justice and recognition, submitting a claim is a major milestone in many claimants' lives and we are available to provide legal support to all who require it," the statement reads. Hudson said he worries about the claimants in smaller communities like Fort Resolution that he went to school with. He wants to see the federal government get involved by providing the money to hire more people like Marie-Jewell to host in-person meetings in those smaller communities. "Why would we remember things that happened 50 years ago if they didn't affect us?" Hudson said. [GN] CARDINAL HEALTH: $215M Opioid Suit Settlement with 2 Ohio Counties ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cardinal Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that in the nine months ended March 31, 2020, the Company along with two other national distributors entered into a US$215 million settlement with two Ohio counties, Cuyahoga and Summit, to resolve all claims in the first bellwether trial in the opioid-related Multi-District Litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, which had been set for trial for October 2019. The Company said, "Pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including us, have been named as defendants in over 3,000 lawsuits relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. The lawsuits seek equitable relief and monetary damages based on a variety of legal theories including various common law claims, such as public nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment as well as violations of controlled substance laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and various other statutes. These lawsuits also name pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail pharmacy chains and other entities as defendants. "Approximately 2,700 of these lawsuits have been filed by counties, municipalities, cities and political subdivisions in various federal, state, and other courts. The vast majority of these lawsuits were filed in U.S. federal court and have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the "MDL"). "In January 2020, the complaints of the Cabell County, West Virginia and the City of Huntington, West Virginia were remanded to U.S. District Court in West Virginia. A trial date has been set in August 2020. In addition, the complaints of San Francisco, California and the Cherokee Nation have been remanded to their original district courts, but no trial dates have been set. "In addition, 25 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against distributors, including us, in various state courts. A trial in New York for cases brought by the New York State Attorney General and Nassau and Suffolk counties was scheduled to begin in March 2020, but was deferred due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial is scheduled to begin in October 2020 for a case brought by the Ohio State Attorney General and trial on a case brought by certain West Virginia political subdivisions is scheduled for March 2021. "Additionally, we have received requests from a multi-state task force of state attorneys general, as well as separate civil investigative demands, subpoenas or requests for information from these and other state attorneys general offices and governmental authorities. "In October 2019, we agreed in principle to a global settlement framework with a leadership group of state attorneys general that is designed to resolve all pending and future opioid lawsuits and claims by states and political subdivisions (the "Settlement Framework"). This Settlement Framework is subject to contingencies and uncertainties as to final terms, but is the basis for our negotiation of definitive terms and documentation. "The Settlement Framework includes (1) a cash component, pursuant to which we would pay up to US$5.56 billion over eighteen years, (2) development and participation in a program for distribution of opioid abuse treatment medications for a period of ten years, and (3) industry-wide changes to be specified to controlled substance anti-diversion programs. Definitive terms for a settlement pursuant to the Settlement Framework continue to be negotiated, and there is no assurance that the necessary parties will agree to a definitive settlement agreement or that the contingencies to any agreement will be satisfied. In connection with these matters, we have US$5.56 billion accrued at March 31, 2020, included in deferred income taxes and other liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets, which represents the cash component. We are unable to reasonably estimate the liability or cost associated with the other components of the Settlement Framework, the potential distribution of treatment medications and any incremental costs for changes to our controlled substance anti-diversion program that we may agree to. We continue to negotiate the definitive terms of the Settlement Framework. "In the nine months ended March 31, 2020, we along with two other national distributors entered into a US$215 million settlement with two Ohio counties, Cuyahoga and Summit, to resolve all claims in the first bellwether trial in the MDL, which had been set for trial for October 2019. In connection with this settlement, we incurred US$66 million within litigation (recoveries)/charges, net during the nine months ended March 31, 2020. "In connection with these matters, we recorded a total pre-tax charge of US$5.63 billion (US$5.14 billion after tax) during the nine months ended March 31, 2020 in litigation (recoveries)/charges, net, in the condensed consolidated statement of earnings for the cash component. Because loss contingencies are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, the assessment is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. We will regularly review these opioid litigation matters to determine whether our accrual is adequate. The amount of ultimate loss may differ materially from this accrual. We continue to strongly dispute the allegations made in these lawsuits and reaching an agreement in principle on a global settlement framework is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing." Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services and products company in the United States and internationally. It provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ohio. CARDINAL HEALTH: 105 Opioid Suits Filed by Private Plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------------- Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that private plaintiffs, which include unions and other health and welfare funds, hospital systems and other healthcare providers, businesses and individuals, had brought approximately 400 lawsuits relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications as of May 4, 2020. Of these, 105 are purported class actions. The causes of action asserted by these plaintiffs are similar to those asserted by public plaintiffs. Cardinal Health said, "We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters." Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services and products company in the United States and internationally. It provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ohio. CARDINAL HEALTH: Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust Suits Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Cardinal Health, Inc. still defends itself against the Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The Company said, "In December 2019, pharmaceutical distributors including us were added as defendants in a civil multidistrict litigation consisting of multiple individual and class action lawsuits filed by indirect purchasers of generic drugs, such as hospitals and retail pharmacies. The plaintiffs allege that pharmaceutical distributors encouraged manufacturers to increase prices, provided anti-competitive pricing information to manufacturers and informed manufacturers that they wished to maintain current customer allocations for the purpose of avoiding price erosion. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters." Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services and products company in the United States and internationally. It provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ohio. CARDINAL HEALTH: Still Faces Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension Fund Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cardinal Health, Inc. continues to face a class action suit initiated by the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. The Company said, "In August 2019, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund filed a purported class action complaint against Cardinal Health and certain current and former officers and employees in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our common shares between March 2015 and May 2018. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions related to the integration of the Cordis business and inventory and supply chain problems within the Cordis business, and seeks to recover unspecified damages and equitable relief for the alleged misstatements and omissions. We believe that the claims asserted in this complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them." Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services and products company in the United States and internationally. It provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ohio. CARNIVAL CORP: Hid COVID-19 Management Failures, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ SERVICE LAMP CORPORATION PROFIT SHARING PLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, ARNOLD W. DONALD, and DAVID BERNSTEIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-22202 (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly-situated entities or persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Carnival common stock and securities between January 28, 2020 and May 1, 2020, alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements about Carnival's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade its common stock and securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class period. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors the increasing events of COVID-19 illness on the company's ships, the company's violation of port-of-call regulations by concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19 infections on board its ships, its failure to follow its own health and safety protocols developed in the wake of other communicable disease outbreaks, and its role for the continuous spread of COVID-19 at various ports throughout the world. Following the disclosures of the Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions, 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. Carnival Corporation is cruise operator and travel leisure company based in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1625 N. Commerce Pkwy, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (866) 849-7545 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com - and – Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com jbarrack@barrack.com - and – James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jlopiano@pomlaw.com CARRIAGE SERVICES: Uschold Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs William Uschold, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit styled William Uschold, et al. v. Carriage Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-04424-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment; 2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: Class: "all former and current sales employees employed by Defendants within the State of California within four years of the filing of this Complaint until the entry of judgment after trial, that were not reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in relationship to the use of personal property while performing their job duties as required by California Labor Code Section 2802"; and Two Subclasses: (a) all Class Members that were not reimbursed for the use of their personal cell phone as required by California law ("Cell phone sub-class"); and (b) all Class Members that were not reimbursed for use of their personal vehicles as required by California law; specifically gas and mileage ("Vehicle sub-class"); 4. directing Counsel for Plaintiffs to serve a copy of this Order on the Plaintiffs no later than March 20, 2020; and 5. directing the parties, no later than March 20, 2020, to meet and confer and submit a joint statement proposing pre-trial and trial deadlines. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have partially satisfied their required showing for adequacy -- three Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives, but counsel is not adequate. With respect to the other requirements of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs have only successfully shown typicality. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to satisfy Rule 23(a). Plaintiffs have cited no evidence and marshaled no argument as to whether the two proposed sub-classes meet any of the Rule 23 requirements. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to make the required showing as to the sub-classes as well. Because Plaintiffs have not satisfied Rule 23(a), the Court declines to address the parties' arguments concerning predominance under Rule 23(b). The Court therefore denies Plaintiffs' motion for class certification." The appellate case is captioned as William Uschold, et al. v. Carriage Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-15523, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Jose Alamendarez, Tiana Naples, Ton Saechao and William Uschold's opening brief is due on July 2, 2020; -- Appellee Carriage Services, Inc.'s answering brief is due on August 3, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM USCHOLD, each individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, JOSE ALAMENDAREZ, TIANA NAPLES, and TON SAECHAO are represented by: Na'il Benjamin, Esq. BENJAMIN LAW GROUP 1290 B Street, Suite 314 Hayward, CA 94541-2967 Telephone: (510) 897-9967 E-mail: nbenjamin@benjaminlawgroup.com Defendant-Appellee CARRIAGE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, is represented by: Amir Nassihi, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Montgomery Tower, Suite 2700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: anassihi@shb.com CARVE DESIGNS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carve Designs, Inc. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Carve Designs Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04397-LJL (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Carve Designs designs and manufactures women's apparel. The Company offers dresses, tops, skirts, shorts, pants, sweatshirts, swim wears, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com CASPER SLEEP: Lematta Sues Over Steep Decline in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT LEMATTA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CASPER SLEEP INC., PHILIP KRIM, GREGORY MACFARLANE, NEIL PARIKH, DIANE IRVINE, ANTHONY FLORENCE, JACK LAZAR, BENJAMIN LERER, KAREN KATZ, DANI REISS, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., UBS SECURITIES LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., PIPER SANDLER & CO. and GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02744 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Casper securities in or traceable to the Company's public offering conducted on or around February 7, 2020 seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933. On January 10, 2020, the Company filed its Registration Statement on Form S-l for the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2020. On February 7, 2020, Casper filed its Prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC. In the IPO, defendants sold 8.35 million shares of Casper common stock at $12 per share, generating over $100 million in gross proceeds. The Registration Statement was negligently prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing its preparation. According to the complaint, the statements identified were inaccurate statements of material fact because they failed to disclose the following adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO: (a) that Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather than growing; (b) that Casper was changing an important distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (c) that 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; (d) that Casper was suffering accelerating losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows and profitability out of reach; (e) that 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; (f) that, as a result of (a)-(e) above, Casper's ability to achieve profitability, implement its growth initiatives, and expand internationally had been misrepresented in the Registration Statement, 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 (g) that, as a result of (a)-(f) above, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability. Casper Sleep Inc. purports to sell mattresses, sleep aids and other sleep-related products and services based in New York, New York. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Jefferies LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., UBS Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Piper Sandler & Co. and Guggenheim Securities, LLC are financial services provider based in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com CASTLE PARKING: Evanston Files Insurance Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Castle Parking Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Evanston Insurance Company, Individually and as successor by merger with Essex Insurance Company v. Castle Parking Solutions, LLC, Mentewab Ayalew, Jim McAnally, Kerington Youmans, Denise Gatewood, Individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Case No. 1:20-cv-02610-LMM (N.D. Ga., June 19, 2020). The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues. Castle Parking Solutions, LLC, is a parking attendant located in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Crighton Allen, Esq. Thomas S. Hay, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS 600 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: (404) 885-3529 Email: crighton.allen@troutman.com thomas.hay@troutman.com CHASE BANK: Young Appeals Decision in Consumer Suit to 3rd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Kira Young filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in her lawsuit styled Kira Young v. Chase Bank USA NA, et al., Case No. 1-19-cv-01026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises from Chase's alleged routine practice of charging interest on credit card accounts on transactions that are fully paid by the billing period due date. According to the complaint, Chase, like other major credit card companies, provides consumers an interest-free period, also called a grace period, to pay off new purchases. In reality, Ms. Young contends, Chase routinely denies consumers the grace period on new purchases to which they are promised. She argues that this practice is not only a breach of contract, it is also unfair and deceptive. The appellate case is captioned as Kira Young v. Chase Bank USA NA, et al., Case No. 20-1663, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KIRA YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated, is represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD 412 H Street, N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: jrathod@wbmllp.com - and - P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. ROSENTHAL MONHAIT & GODDESS 919 North Market Street, Suite 1401 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 E-mail: bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com Defendants-Appellees CHASE BANK USA NA, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, JP MORGAN CHASE & CO, are represented by: Catherine G. Dearlove, Esq. Steven J. Fineman, Esq. RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER 920 North King Street, One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 658-6541 E-mail: dearlove@rlf.com fineman@rlf.com - and - Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq. Stephanie Simon, Esq. WILMERHALE 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 E-mail: ALAN.SCHOENFELD@WILMERHALE.COM STEPHANIE.SIMON@WILMERHALE.COM CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Glancy Prongay Probes Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, on June 17 disclosed that it has commenced an investigation on behalf of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. ("Chembio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CEMI) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws. If you suffered a loss on your Chembio 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/chembio-diagnostics-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 April 2020, the Company's COVID-19 antibody test was one of the first to be granted Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Then, on June 17, 2020, before the market opened, the FDA revoked the EUA for Chembio's Dual Path Platform COVID-19 serology test due to concerns regarding the test's accuracy. Specifically, the FDA found that the "benefits no longer outweigh its risks" and that "it is not reasonable to believe that the test may be effective" because it "generates a higher than expected rate of false results and higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the device." On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.04, or nearly 60%, to close at $3.89 per share on June 17, 2020. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Chembio 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. [GN] CITIZEN ENERGY: Harcum Suit Balks at Merger Agreement ----------------------------------------------------- CINDY HARCUM, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHN LOVOI, PAUL B. LOYD, JR., MICHAEL RALEIGH, ANDREW TAYLOR, MATTHEW BONANNO, JOSEPH A. MILLS, EVAN LEDERMAN, ANTHONY TRIPODO, CITIZEN ENERGY OPERATING, LLC, CITIZEN ENERGY PRESSBURG, INC., ROAN HOLDINGS, LLC, JVL ADVISORS, LLC, WARBURG PINCUS, LLC, ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, and YORK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GLOBAL ADVISORS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2020-0398 (Del. Ch., May 22, 2020) is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and former Roan Resources stockholders against Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty and/or other violations of state law arising out of their efforts to effectuate the Merger of Roan Resources with Citizen Energy pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price. On October 1, 2019, Roan Resources announced that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement, pursuant to which Citizen Energy Pressburg, Inc. would merge with and into Roan Resources, with Roan Resources continuing as the surviving wholly-owned subsidiary of Citizen Energy. The Merger was completed on December 6, 2019 and Roan Resources stockholders received only $1.52 in cash for each share of common stock that they owned. According to the complaint, the Merger was the result of pressure by the Controlling Stockholder Defendants to sell the Company on terms that provide them with lucrative personal benefits not shared by the Company's remaining stockholders. More specifically, and as outlined in greater depth below, the Controlling Stockholder Defendants used their position as the Company's controllers to guide the Company into an all-cash sale to a buyer that appears to have been affiliated with Defendant Lovoi and in a manner that afforded the Controlling Stockholder Defendants with special benefits, including the repayment of a $50 million term loan, plus a repayment premium of $6,550,807.41. Defendants also failed to disclose material information to stockholders. Instead, in order to convince stockholders to vote in favor of the Merger, on November 4, 2019, the Director Defendants (as defined herein) authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading definitive proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), in violation of their fiduciary duties. Nowhere in the Proxy was Lovoi's apparent affiliation with the buyer or the Controlling Stockholder Defendants' unique interests in the Merger disclosed. As a result, when stockholders voted on the Merger, they were unaware (1) that the Company's controlling shareholder was affiliated with the buyer and (2) that all three of the Company's largest shareholders had a unique interest in the Merger not shared by the Company's non-insider shareholders, such that the vote on the Merger was not fully informed. Citizen Energy Operating, LLC operates as an oil and natural gas exploration company based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Citizen Energy Pressburg, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Citizen Energy, formed on September 26, 2019. Roan Holdings, LLC is an independent oil and natural gas company headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. JVL Advisors, LLC provides investment advisory services to private investment vehicles headquartered in Houston, Texas. Warburg Pincus, LLC is a New York-based private equity firm and the financial sponsor of Citizen Energy. Elliott Management Corporation is an American investment management firm. York Capital Management Global Advisors, LLC is a global institutional investment management firm with approximately $18.5 billion in assets under management as of June 2019.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120 P.O. Box 1680 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com - and - Michael J. Palestina, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras St. Suite #3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 Email: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Facsimile: (212) 202-7880 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR: Dillon Appeals D. Ore. Ruling to Ninth Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs William Dillon, Scott Vincent Graue, David Michael Hodges, and Albert Love filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled William Dillon, et al. v. Clackamas County, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00820-YY, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, former inmates at Clackamas County Jail ("CCJ"), bring this class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Plaintiffs' state statutory and federal constitutional rights arising from group strip searches at CCJ. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript shall be ordered by July 16, 2020; -- Transcript is due on August 17, 2020; -- Appellants William Dillon, Scott Vincent Graue, David Michael Hodges and Albert Love's opening brief is due on September 24, 2020; -- Appellees Clackamas County and Craig Roberts' answering brief is due on October 26, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants, WILLIAM DILLON, SCOTT VINCENT GRAUE, DAVID MICHAEL HODGES, and ALBERT LOVE, Individually, on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, are represented by: Leonard Randolph Berman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LEONARD R. BERMAN 4711 SW Huber Street, Suite E-3 Portland, OR 97219 Telephone: (503) 473-8787 E-mail: easyrabbi@yahoo.com Defendants-Appellees CLACKAMAS COUNTY and CRAIG ROBERTS, both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff, are represented by: Shawn A. Lillegren, Esq. Stephen L. Madkour, Esq. CLACKAMAS COUNTY COUNSEL 2051 Kaen Road Oregon City, OR 97045 Telephone: (503) 742-5395 E-mail: slillegren@clackamas.us smadkour@clackamas.us CLARK COUNTY, NV: Court Dismisses Allison Suit Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard F. Boulware, II of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed without prejudice the case, RONALD JOSEPH ALLISON, Plaintiff, v. CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00216-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.). The action began with a pro se filing of a "Class Action for Federal Justice" by an inmate in the custody of the Clark County Detention Center ("CCDC"). On Feb. 2, 2020, the Court issued an order directing the Plaintiff to file a complaint and a fully complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee of $400 within 30 days from the date of that order. The 30-day period has now expired, and the Plaintiff has not filed a complaint or an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the full filing fee, or otherwise responded to the Court's order. The Court notes that Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Court's order to file a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee within 30 days. Accordingly, Judge Boulware dismissed without prejudice the case based on the Plaintiff's failure to file a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee in compliance with the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2020. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/pYeLXy from Leagle.com. COLONY CAPITAL: Disclosures Misled Investors, Swartzendruber Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX SWARTZENDRUBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. COLONY CAPITAL, INC.; THOMAS J. BARRACK, JR.; MARK M. HEDSTROM; and DARREN J. TANGEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04673 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired Colony securities between August 9, 2019 and May 7, 2020, alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Colony's business, operational and compliance policies throughout the Class period which made them purchased Colony securities at artificially inflated prices. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that 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 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. Moreover, Colony's stock price continuously declined following the release of its financial and operating results for the third quarter of 2019 and the first quarter of 2020, which resulted to $5.00 per share on November 8, 2019 and $2.02 per share on May 8, 2020. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Colony's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Colony Capital Inc. is a global investment management firm with its principal executive offices located at 515 South Flower Street, 44th Floor, Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and – Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and – Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com COMMUNITY CARE: Faces Class Action Over 2019 Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- John Cropley, writing for The Daily Gazette, reports that two patients of Community Care Physicians have sued the medical group and its accounting firm over a late-2019 data breach and are seeking class action status for the estimated 170,000 other CCP patients potentially at risk. The two complaints, one in state court and one in federal court, allege significant and long-lasting impacts from the ransomware attack, as their personal information is now available to identity thieves and fraudsters. Not counting any recent changes amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Latham-based CCP is a major presence in the Capital Region medical community, with 2,000 employees serving 370,000 patients at 80 locations in eight counties. CCP's accounting firm, Colonie-based BST & Co. CPAs, suffered a computer breach in early December that exposed personal information of CCP patients. CCP did not disclose this to the patients for more than two months, finally sending out a notice on Feb. 14 and advising them to take precautions to protect their identity. In February, CCP and BST would not discuss how many people were affected. The new litigation offers details. On May 27, lawyers for Elmer Robert Keach III of Albany filed a complaint against BST in state Supreme Court in Albany County. On June 12, lawyers for Eleanor Murray of Niskayuna filed a complaint against BST and CCP in U.S. District Court in Albany. Both complaints seek class action status for the case on behalf of Keach, Murray and others in the same situation as they are. The complaints, written by separate lawyers for separate court systems, vary in language and mechanics but essentially lay out the same narrative: BST and CCP could have and should have prevented this breach, and they amplified its impact by waiting more than two months to report it to the victims, who now face anxiety and expense over their data being public. The two lawsuits' assertions and allegations include: -- BST failed to implement adequate cyber-security protocols and procedures. -- The breach was reasonably foreseeable given the high frequency of cyberattacks in the financial services and medical industries. -- The ransomware attack began Dec. 4 and was detected Dec. 7; had BST and its employees better monitored computer networks and systems, they would have detected it sooner. -- BST and CCP did not encrypt the protected health information they held, as specified in the HIPAA Security Rule; BST failed to adhere to the federal Safeguards Rule; and CCP failed to adhere to industry standards. -- CCP failed to train employees on even the most basic cybersecurity protocols. -- CCP has violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. -- Private information of 170,000 people was affected by the incident. -- Notification was not sent to affected patients until Feb. 14, 2020; -- CCP told consumers that BST's investigation didn't confirm an unauthorized individual had obtained their personal information, even though that information already had been published online. -- Data thieves can use the sensitive and confidential personal information they stole for a wide variety of misdeeds. -- Plaintiff and class members are at elevated risk of fraud and identity theft for years to come because of the breach; they may also have to incur out-of-pocket costs and spend time and effort for protective measures. The complaints seek jury trials. Keach seeks compensatory and punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, payment for at last seven years of credit monitoring, and injunctive relief including improvement to BST's data security systems. Murray asks for damages, interest at the maximum interest rate allowable by law, injunctive and declaratory relief, costs, disbursements and attorney fees CCP did not return requests for comment for this story. BST said it does not comment on pending litigation. CCP said in a released statement in late February that it could not confirm any patient data had been compromised, and would not specify how many patients' data had been put at risk. [GN] CONVERSE INC: Gets Partial OK on Summary Judgment Bid in Chavez --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERIC CHAVEZ, Plaintiff, v. CONVERSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03746-NC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Converse's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Chavez represents a class of employees, arguing that Defendant Converse owes wages for time spent by the class undergoing mandatory security inspections. Moving for summary judgment, Converse argues that its policy was implemented under a good faith understanding of California law and that, in any case, the time spent was de minimis. Chavez argues that the good faith defense does not apply to his wage statement claims under Cal. Lab. Code Section 226. Magistrate Judge Cousins is persuaded by the majority of cases holding that the good faith defense applies to Section 226. In particular, a violation of Section 226 must be "knowing and intentional." An employer's good faith belief that its conduct was lawful precludes a "knowing and intentional violation." Turning to the merits, the Magistrate Judge concludes that a good faith dispute exists as to Converse's de minimis defense. Before the California Supreme Court's decision in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., California and federal courts, including this one, regularly applied the federal de minimis defense to small increments of time. Likewise, California's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement also applied the federal de minimis standard prior to Troester. Thus, although Converse's defense was ultimately unsuccessful, Converse acted reasonably in asserting the de minimis defense given the legal landscape at the time. Accordingly, the Judge grants Converse's motion for summary judgment as to Cal. Lab. Code Sections 203 and 226 penalties. As the Ninth Circuit already found, there is a factual dispute as to whether the time spent by the class on exit inspections is sufficiently "minute," "brief," or "trifling" to be de minimis. Likewise, whether it is reasonable for Converse to adopt modern "technological advances that may help with tracking small amounts of time" is not appropriate for summary judgment. Judge Cousins also rejects Converse's suggestion that its expert, Dr. Crandall, should be accorded greater weight than that of Chavez's expert, Dr. Kriegler. On summary judgment, the Court may not make credibility findings or weigh conflicting evidence. Accordingly, Judge Cousins denies summary judgment as to Converse's de minimis defense. In its reply, Converse argues that Chavez's meal and rest break claims should be dismissed because Converse provides its employees with 15-minute breaks and California law only mandates 10-minute breaks. Chavez, however, did not have an opportunity to address Converse's argument as it was raised for the first time in reply. Nor did either party raise this issue at the hearing. Accordingly, Judge Cousins denies summary judgment as to Chavez's meal and rest break claims. It is undisputed that Converse changed its policies on Nov. 19, 2019, to no longer mandate exit inspections. At the hearing, Chavez conceded that the class did not have claims after that date. Accordingly, Judge Cousins grants summary judgment as to all claims after Nov. 19, 2019. Considering the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Cousins granted in part Converse's motion for summary judgment as to penalties under Cal. Lab. Code Sections 203 and 226. The Judge otherwise denied Converse's motion for summary judgment. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/vsDDi8 from Leagle.com. Eric Chavez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Sangwon Hyun -- dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal APC, Kristen Michelle Agnew , Diversity Law Group, APC, Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, P.C., Max William Gavron, Diversity Law Group, Nicholas Rosenthal -- nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group & William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law Group, LLP. Converse, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrea Rose Ortega, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Jonathan Douglas Meer -- jmeer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Joshua David Kienitz, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Melanie Marie Campili Cole, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Michael Afar -- mafar@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Robert G. Hulteng, Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Sheryl Lyn Skibbe -- sskibbe@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as SCOTT PEARLSTONE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:18-cv-00630-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order 1. granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement on behalf of: "all individuals in the United States who, during the Class Period, purchased a Costco executive membership and subsequently canceled their membership but were not refunded the full membership and upgrade fees they originally paid without any credit for a rewards certificate received prior to cancellation"; 2. preliminarily approving the Parties' Settlement Agreement; 3. appointing the Plaintiff as representative of the Settlement Class; 4. appointing Myles McGuire, Paul T. Geske, and Brendan Duffner of McGuire Law, P.C. as Class Counsel; 5. approving the form and methods of the proposed notice; and 6. granting such further relief as the Court deems reasonable and just. In the complaint, the the Parties have reached a Settlement Agreement, under which Costco will establish a Settlement Fund of up to $525,000. The Settlement Class Members who timely file a valid claim will be eligible to choose one of two Settlement Benefits: either (i) a free one-year Costco membership valued at $60.00 (or a one-year extension to their existing membership); or (ii) an individual cash payment in the amount of $15.00 paid from the Settlement Fund. Costco Wholesale, doing business as Costco, is an American multinational corporation which operates a chain of membership-only warehouse clubs.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Myles McGuire, Esq. Paul T. Geske, Esq. Brendan Duffner, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: mmcguire@mcpgpc.com pgeske@mcgpc.com bduffner@mcgpc.com COVANCE INC: $183K Deal in Sealock Suit Gets Final Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN SEALOCK, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. COVANCE, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-cv-5857 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Consent Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement, Service Award, an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and the Entry of Final Judgment. The Settlement provides for two separate settlement funds to satisfy the claims of the Class Members. The gross settlement fund of $183,095.20 will be allocated to the FLSA Plaintiffs, of which a net settlement fund of $76,455.88 will be distributed to those that did not opt out of the Settlement. The gross settlement fund of $66,904.80 will be allocated to the Rule 23 Plaintiffs, of which a net settlement fund of $29,557.25 will be distributed. The Settlement provides for a service award to the named-Plaintiff John Sealock in the amount of $10,000. It also provides for a payment of $83,333, or the equivalent of 33.33% of the total Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, plus $17,253.86 for the Class Counsel's out-of-pocket expenses, totaling $100,586.86, to be paid to the Class Counsel. The Class Administrator fees are to be paid to Arden Claims Service, LLC (Arden) in the amount of $20,000. The Court approved the Settlement on behalf of the FLSA Plaintiffs and Rule 23 Plaintiffs. These two Settlement classes are certified: (a) all individuals who worked as CRAs in New York at any time between Aug. 3, 2011 through Oct. 8, 2019; and (b) all individuals who worked as CRAs in New York at any time between Aug. 3, 2014 through Oct. 8, 2019 and who participated in the Rule 23 Settlement by not requesting to exclude themselves and who cash a settlement check. The Parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement and the Order and Final Judgment. Arden is directed to distribute payments to the 170 participating Class Members in accordance with the terms of the Settlement. The allocation and distribution as set forth in the Settlement are final. The named-Plaintiff, the FLSA Plaintiffs, and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs, with the exception of Stephanie Denise Bailey, who opted out of the Settlement, will be bound by all of the terms, obligations, and conditions of the Settlement, including but not limited to the release of claims set forth therein, and all determinations and judgments in this action concerning the Settlement. The Rule 23 Plaintiffs who cash their settlement checks will thereby release the Defendant from FLSA wage and hour claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the lawsuit. The named-Plaintiff, John Sealock, additionally released the Defendant from any and all claims arising from his employment with Defendant in exchange for his service award. Upon review of the appropriate case law, the request for Service Award is granted. Arden is ordered to pay named-Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000, apportioned from the Settlement Funds as explained in the Notices. Upon review of the appropriate case law and the Class Counsel's billing records and having conducted a cross-check with the Class Counsel's lodestar calculation, and with no objection from Defendant or any Class Member, the Court granted the Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees in the amount of $83,333, and the Class Counsel's request for expenses in the amount of $17,253.86. Arden is to be paid $20,000 for its administration fees and costs from the Settlement Amount, apportioned from the Settlement Fund as explained in the Notices. Should any Class Members fail to cash their checks within 180 days of distribution, Arden will redistribute the amount in uncashed checks to those Class Members who cashed their checks within 20 days, after deducting their costs from the redistribution of Settlement. Should Arden's costs exceed the amount in uncashed checks, the amount will be returned to the Defendant. All claims against the Defendant in the action are dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk is directed to close the case, but the Court will retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation, implementation, and enforcement over the Parties' Settlement and over the administration and distribution of the Settlement Fund. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/H9Qq2K from Leagle.com. John Sealock, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Todd Coleman -- atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Law Offices of Borrelli & Associates, Michael John Borrelli -- mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Law Offices of Borrelli & Associates & Jeffrey Robert Maguire -- jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Borelli & Associates P.L.L.C. Covance, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark Andrew Konkel, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, Michael D. Yim, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, Robert Steiner, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP & Diana Hamar, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP. CRONOS GROUP: Putative Class Suits Underway in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- Cronos Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend two putative class action suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On March 11 and 12, 2020, two alleged shareholders of the Company separately filed two putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaints generally allege that certain of the Company's prior public statements about revenues and internal controls were incorrect based on the Company's March 2, 2020, disclosure that the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors was conducting a review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel. The complaints do not quantify a damage request. Defendants have not yet responded to the complaints. Cronos Group Inc. is an innovative global cannabinoid company with international production and distribution across five continents. The company is committed to building disruptive intellectual property by advancing cannabis research, technology and product development and are building an iconic brand portfolio. The company is based in Ontario Canada. CRONOS GROUP: Suit Against Redwood Holding Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Cronos Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit against Redwood Holding Group, LLC, has been dismissed. On April 8, 2020 a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Redwood Holding Group, alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breaches of the California Commercial Code for breach of express warranties and implied warranty of merchantability with respect to Redwood’s marketing and sale of U.S. hemp products. The complaint does not quantify a damage request. On April 14, 2020, the class action complaint was dismissed for certain pleading deficiencies and the plaintiff was granted leave until April 24, 2020 to amend the complaint to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. Cronos said, 'As of the date of this Quarterly Report, the plaintiff has not refiled the complaint and the complaint has been dismissed without prejudice." Cronos Group Inc. is an innovative global cannabinoid company with international production and distribution across five continents. The company is committed to building disruptive intellectual property by advancing cannabis research, technology and product development and are building an iconic brand portfolio. The company is based in Ontario Canada. CURADEN AG: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Lyngaas TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Defendant CURADEN AG filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Brian Lyngaas v. Curaden AG, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-10910, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court awarded $1,000 to Brian Lyngaas in TCPA-related damages in the case. Under the class action, Plaintiff Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S., on behalf of himself and similarly situated class members, asserts that on March 8 and March 28, 2016, he received unsolicited fax advertisements from Defendants Curaden AG and Curaden USA, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. The appellate case is captioned as Brian Lyngaas v. Curaden AG, et al., Case No. 20-1243, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly- situated persons, is represented by: Phillip Andrew Bock, Esq. David Max Oppenheim, Esq. BOCK & HATCH 134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com david@classlawyers.com Defendant-Appellant CURADEN AG is represented by: Brian S. Sullivan, Esq. DINSMORE 255 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 977-8200 E-mail: brian.sullivan@dinsmore.com Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee CURADEN USA, INCORPORATED, is represented by: Brian S. Sullivan, Esq. DINSMORE 255 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 977-8200 E-mail: brian.sullivan@dinsmore.com CURO GROUP: Carpenters Pension Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as YELLOWDOG PARTNERS, LP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CURO GROUP HOLDINGS CORP., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02662-JWL-KGG (D. Kan.), the Lead Plaintiff Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying this action as a class action consisting of the following Class: "all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of CURO Group Holdings Corp. between April 27, 2018 and October 24, 2018, inclusive, and were damaged thereby."; Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, the Founder Defendants, the FFL Defendants, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which a defendant has or had a controlling interest. 2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") as Class Counsel.[CC] Curo Group operates as a consumer finance company. The company offers unsecured and secured installment, open-end, and single-pay loan services, as well as renders other customer service, robust operating systems, call center, and a track record services.[CC] The Lead Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Schwartz, Esq. Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Rachel E. Schwartz, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816 714-7100 Facsimile: 816 714-7101 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com schwartz@stuevesiegel.com - and - Jack Reise, Esq. Robert J. Robbins, Esq. Maureen E. Mueller, Esq. Kathleen B. Douglas, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: 561 750-3000 Facsimile: 561 750-3364 E-mail: jreise@rgrdlaw.com rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com mmueller@rgrdlaw.com kdouglas@rgrdlaw.com - and - John Long, Esq. CAVANAGH & O'HARA 2319 West Jefferson Street Springfield, IL 62702 Telephone: 217 544-1771 Facsimile: 217/544-9894 E-mail: johnlong@cavanagh-ohara.com DANBY PRODUCTS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Danby Products Inc. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Danby Products Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04399-PGG-KHP (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Danby Products manufactures electrical appliances. The Company offers air conditioners, refrigerators, dehumidifiers, freezers, dishwashers, microwaves, dishwashers, and laundry products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com DAVE'S HOT CHICKEN: Faces Figueroa Suit Over Sick Leave Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Figueroa, individually v. Dave's Hot Chicken, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV21795 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 9, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other employees similarly situated seeking civil penalties, attorneys fees, costs and other available relief for violations of the California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act. The Plaintiff contends that throughout his employment, the Defendants failed to provide him with written notice that sets forth the amount of paid sick leave available, or paid time off leave in lieu of sick leave, for use on either his itemized wage statement or in a separate writing provided on the designated pay date with his payment of wages. The Plaintiff was employed as a cook in the Defendant's Hollywood location from August 14, 2019, through October 15, 2019. The Defendant is a food services company specializing in Nashville-style hot chicken.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq. Ryan A. Stubbe, Esq. JAURIGUE LAW GROUP 300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300 Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: 818 630 7280 Facsimile: 888 879 1697 E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com ryan@jlglawyers.com DELTA AIR: Polk Seeks Refunds for Passengers on Canceled Flights ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN POLK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02461-ELR (N.D. Ga., June 9, 2020), alleges that the Defendant breached its contract of warranty when it sought to provide travel credits or coupons in lieu of refunds for passengers on cancelled flights. The Plaintiff contends that as part of each ticket purchase, Delta makes a promise and warranty to customers that in the event of a flight cancellation, the airline must either re-accommodate passengers on the next available flight or refund the passengers. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the Covid-19 virus a public health emergency of international concern. Across the United States, state and local governments began issuing shelter-in-place orders that specifically prohibited non-essential travel, specifically, including air travel because of the extraordinary risk that air travel presented to the ability to strictly adhere to social distancing standards and avoid inter-community and inter-state travel--both of which threatened to dramatically increase the spread of the virus. Delta touts itself as the "world's most valuable airline brand." According to Delta, it serves over 200 million customers every year. Delta operates over 5,000 daily flights to more than 300 destinations in over fifty countries and has as many as 15,000 affiliated departures a day through its global partners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq. THE HIRSCH LAW FIRM 230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2260 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: 404-487-6552 Facsimile: 678-541-9356 E-mail: andrea@thehirschlawfirm.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: 310 474-9111 Facsimile: 310 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com - and - David R. Dubin, Esq. Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: 313-392-0015 Facsimile: 313-392-0025 E-mail: ddubin@ldclassaction.com ncoulson@ldclassaction.com DENKA PERFORMANCE: Judge Dismisses Class Action ----------------------------------------------- European Rubber Journal reports that a US federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Denka Performance Elastomer. [GN] DETROIT, MI: 6th Circuit Dimisses "Gary B." Literacy Case --------------------------------------------------------- J. Cooper, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that on June 10, the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals signed an order dismissing the Gary B. v. Whitmer case, commonly known as the Detroit literacy case, legally bringing it to a conclusion. The settlement reached last month between Governor Gretchen Whitmer and the plaintiffs in the Gary B. v. Whitmer case will stand, but a legal precedent for the constitutional right to an education has been vacated. In a calculated move, all 16 judges of the Sixth Circuit court agreed not to rehear the case en banc, as they had indicated they would in a decision May 19. The unusual decision to rehear the case en banc was initiated by the request of several Republican Michigan legislators to the appeals court seeking to overturn the April 23 ruling of a three-judge panel of that court. The majority opinion of that panel, written by Justice Eric Clay, in overturning a June 2018 ruling in Detroit, allowed that the Detroit plaintiffs had been denied "access to a basic education." An attorney for the Republican-controlled Michigan legislature, John J. Bursch, told the press, "The important point is that the en banc 6th Circuit already vacated the opinion, so it has no precedential value. From a legal perspective, it's as though Judge (Eric) Clay never even wrote it." Thus, it appears the May 19 decision allowed the court to permit the settlement between the plaintiffs and the state of Michigan to stand, but legally abrogates any precedent declaring a federal, constitutionally-mandated guarantee to education. The April 23 decision itself emphasized that it was "narrow in scope." The decision merely recognized the "right to access to basic literacy," equivalent to a third-grade reading level, in order to "provide access to skills that are essential for the basic exercise of other fundamental rights and liberties, most importantly participation in our political system." As the WSWS pointed out at the time, the enthusiasm for that narrow scope by the plaintiffs and their supporters expressed the shift to the right of liberalism over the past half century. The settlement following the April 23 decision, hastily reached on May 14 between the seven plaintiffs representing all students in the Detroit Public Schools Community District (DPSCD) and the State of Michigan, provides for $280,000 for the seven plaintiffs and merely $2.7 million to provide literacy initiatives in the district. These funds are available to the governor to distribute without legislative approval. The settlement also stipulates that the governor will "propose legislation" during her first term for a further $94.5 million for literacy initiatives in the district. Particularly under conditions of massive budget cuts being fueled by the loss of tax revenue caused by the coronavirus pandemic economic crisis, this money will undoubtedly not be approved. The class-action lawsuit was originally filed by the seven Detroit students in 2016, alleging that the appalling conditions in the Detroit schools denied them basic literacy skills. The suit sought to set a legal precedent based on the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution for equal protection in regard to education. US District Court Judge Stephen Murphy III dismissed the case in June 2018, sending it to the US Court of Appeals. The case was seen as a challenge to the prevailing precedent that the federal government has no constitutional obligation to provide access to education for its citizens. That precedent was set in 1973, when the US Supreme Court ruled that "there is no fundamental right to education in the Constitution" in the San Antonio (TX) v. Rodriguez case. The latest decision by the Sixth Circuit court to vacate the ruling by its own three-judge panel ensured that the Detroit case would proceed no further and set no new precedent. In 2018, following the denial of the plaintiffs' claims in Detroit, the Center for Educational Equity (CEE) at Teachers College, Columbia University in New York, initiated another class action suit, this time in Rhode Island. This suit, which is awaiting an imminent ruling from US District Court Judge William Smith on a motion to dismiss, was launched by veteran litigator Michael A. Rebell. The CEE chose Rhode Island because it has no requirement for civics courses, and minimal history requirements. [GN] DOLLAR TREE: Faces Esco Tort Suit in California Superior Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar Tree Stores Inc. The case is captioned as Kiyana Esco On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc., a Virginia Corporation and DOES 1-50, Case No. 34-2020-00280479-CU-BT-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 10, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of business tort-related laws. Dollar Tree is an American chain of discount variety stores that sells items for $1 or less. Headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia, it is a Fortune 500 company and operates 15,115 stores throughout the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Joseph Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com DON BARNES: Class Certification Bid Placed Under Submission ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Melissa Ahlman, et al. v. Don Barnes, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-00835-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order dated June 26, 2020: -- denying Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Dissolve Injunction; -- granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Discovery; -- denying Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time; and -- vacating the July 20, 2020 hearing. The Court ruled that by July 8, 2020: -- Defendants will serve responses to all outstanding written discovery; -- the parties will agree on a date for inspection of the Jail to be no later than July 15, 2020; and -- the parties will agree on a time and date for the video depositions of Erin Winger, Dr. C. Hsien Chiang, and Commander Joseph Balicki to be no later than July 15, 2020. Also on June 26, Defendants Don Barnes and Orange County filed an Answer to Amended Complaint. In May, Judge Bernal entered an order taking the following under-submission: 1. Motion for Provisional Class Certification; and 2. Ex-Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order. The Plaintiffs allege violation of prisoner civil rights.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stacey K. Grigsby, Esq. Cassandra Stubbs, Esq. Zoe A. Brennan-Krohn, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 44 Montgomery St., 41st floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-293-6800 The Defendants are represented by: D. Kevin Dunn, Esq. Kayla Nicole Watson, Esq. Laura D. Knapp, Esq. ORANGE COUNTY COUNSEL 10 Civic Center Plz, Ste 407 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4017 Telephone: (714) 834-2755 Facsimile: (714) 834-2359 DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Denson Files Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. The case is styled as Jessica Denson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04737 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., is an ongoing re-election campaign by President of the United States Donald Trump, who took office on January 20, 2017. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] DR. REDDY'S: Fairness Hearing on $9MM Deal Set for Sept. 29 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-06436-PGS-DEA (D. N.J.), a Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action was filed on June 15, 2020. The Summary Notice is intended for those who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Dr. Reddy's during the period from November 27, 2014 through September 15, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby, you may be entitled to a payment from a class action settlement. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, on behalf of itself and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. ("Dr. Reddy's"), Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.; Abhijit Mukherjee; G.V. Prasad; Saumen Chakraborty; and Satish Reddy, (collectively, the "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $9,000,000.00 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, at the Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey, 08608, in Courtroom 6W at 10:00 a.m. on September 29, 2020 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated May 15, 2020; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the settlement funds available for distribution to Class Members (the "Net Settlement Fund"); and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it telephonically, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website for the Settlement, www.DrReddysSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: In re Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Sec. Litig. c/o Claims Administrator PO Box 3747 Portland, OR 97208-3747 info@DrReddysSecuritiesSettlement.com (855) 917-3520 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel at: Michael H. Rogers, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than September 22, 2020. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received on or before September 8, 2020. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are filed and received on or before September 8, 2020. Please do not contact the Court, Defendants, or Defendants' Counsel regarding the Notice. [GN] ELECTRIC ANIMAL: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Electric Animal LLC. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Electric Animal LLC d/b/a Sani PackZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-04780 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sani PackZ offers new health & wellness products ranging from sanitizes, face masks, face shields & more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com ELEVATE CREDIT: Sanh Suit v. Rise Credit Service of Texas Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elevate Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Rise Credit Service of Texas, LLC d/b/a Rise, Opportunity Financial, LLC and Applied Data Finance, LLC d/b/a Personify Financial, continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Sopheary Sanh. On January 27, 2020, Sopheary Sanh filed a class action complaint in the Western District Court in the state of Washington against Rise Credit Service of Texas, LLC d/b/a Rise, Opportunity Financial, LLC and Applied Data Finance, LLC d/b/a Personify Financial. The Plaintiff in the case claims that Rise and others are engaged in "predatory lending practices that target financially vulnerable consumers" and have violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act by engaging in unfair or deceptive practices, and seeks class certification, injunctive relief to prevent solicitation of consumers to apply for loans, monetary damages and other appropriate relief, including an award of costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees. Elevate disagrees that it has violated the above referenced law and it intends to vigorously defend its position. Elevate Credit, Inc. provide online credit solutions to consumers and banks in the United States (the "US") and the United Kingdom (the "UK") who are not well-served by traditional bank products and who are looking for better options than payday loans, title loans, pawn and storefront installment loans. The company is based in Forth Worth, Texas. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Defrauds Securities Investors, Albiges Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ BENOIT ALBIGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, PAUL V. CAMPANELLI, BLAISE COLEMAN, and MARK T. BRADLEY, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-07536-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., June 19, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Endo securities between August 8, 2017, and June 10, 2020, alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Endo International's business, operational, and compliance policies during the Class period, particularly failure to disclose: (i) the full scope of Endo's and/or its subsidiaries' contributions to the opioid crisis, including, but not limited to, their opioid products' disproportionately negative impact on New York, one of the most populous states in the U.S., as well as the fraud that Defendants perpetrated on the New York insurance market; and (ii) part of that contribution to the crisis included Endo publishing and disseminating false information to health care providers regarding the risks and benefits of opioids. In the company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the company reported its financial and operating results for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 and also discussed various legal proceedings and investigations to which Endo and its subsidiaries were subject in connection with their marketing and sales practices of opioid products to make the investors believed that the lawsuits were meritless. As a result of the dissemination of the aforementioned false and misleading reports, releases and public statements, the market price of Endo securities was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. Following the disclosure of the Defendants' wrongful conduct and omissions, Endo's Ordinary share price fell $0.66 per share, or 14.63%, to close at $3.85 per share on June 10, 2020. Had the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased or otherwise acquired said securities, or would not have purchased or otherwise acquired them at the inflated prices that were paid. Endo International PLC is a manufacturer and seller of generic and branded pharmaceuticals, with its principal executive offices located at First Floor, Minerva House, Simmonscourt Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and – Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: 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 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com ERIE INSURANCE: Denies Coverage for COVID Losses, Sulimay's Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SULIMAY'S HAIR DESIGN INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No. 2:20-cv-02731-TJS (E.D. Pa., June 10, 2020), alleges that the Defendant has accepted policy premiums paid by the Plaintiff and the Class with no intention of providing coverage for business income losses resulting from orders of a civil authority that the insured businesses be shut down, or any related property damage. The Defendant asserts any losses resulting from property damage or from Civil Authority Orders to cease normal business operations are not covered under the terms of the Policy's Virus Exclusion. The Plaintiff contends that the defendant is wrong. The Plaintiff asserts that COVID-19 pandemic has caused the Plaintiff and the proposed Class property damage and physical loss. Moreover, the Civil Authority Orders have also caused the Plaintiff and the proposed Class to suffer compensable property damage and business losses. Plaintiff Sulimay's owns, operates, manages, and/or controls two salons located at 4233 Main Street, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and at 2333 Fairmount Ave., also in Philadelphia. Defendant Erie is an insurance carrier. The Defendant provides business interruption insurance to the Plaintiff and Class members. The insurance was allegedly intended to cover losses to business interruption.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold Levin, Esq. Laurence Berman, Esq. Frederick Longer, Esq. Daniel Levin, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com flonger@lfsblaw.com dlevin@lfsblaw.com - and - Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Rachel N. Boyd, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. P.O. Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 EVENFLO COMPANY: Brinkerhoff Suit Moved From Ohio to D. Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kristen Brinkerhoff, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Evenflo Company, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00163, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 19, 2020. The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-11170-DJC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Evenflo Company, Inc., operates the juvenile travel and home safety businesses with products that include car seats, travel systems, safety gates, high chairs, play yards, stationary activity centers, infant carriers and doorway jumpers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Burdette Helmer, Jr., Esq. HELMER MARTINS, RICE & POPHAM CO., L.P.A. 600 Vine Street, Suite 2704 Cincinnati, OH 45202-4008 Phone: (513) 421-2400 Fax: (513) 421-7902 Email: jhelmer@fcalawfirm.com EVENFLO COMPANY: Feinfeld Suit Moved From Ohio to Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Linda Feinfeld, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Evenflo Company, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00081, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 19, 2020. The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-11172-DJC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Evenflo Company, Inc., operates the juvenile travel and home safety businesses with products that include car seats, travel systems, safety gates, high chairs, play yards, stationary activity centers, infant carriers and doorway jumpers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: B. Nathaniel Garrett, Esq. HELMER, MARTINS, RICE & POPHAM CO., L.P.A. 600 Vine Street, Suite 2704 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 421-2400 Fax: (513) 421-7902 Email: ngarrett@fcalawfirm.com - and - Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 963-0600 Fax: (215) 963-0838 Email: jgolan@barrack.com The Defendant is represented by: David John Barthel, Esq. Timothy R. Bricker, Esq. CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND LLP 280 Plaza, Suite 1300 280 N. High Street Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 365-4100 Fax: (614) 365-9145 Email: barthel@carpenterlipps.com bricker@carpenterlipps.com EVENFLO COMPANY: Reed Suit Moved From E.D. Wash. to D. Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Lindsay Reed, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Evenflo Company, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00081, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 19, 2020. The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-11168-DJC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability. Evenflo Company, Inc., operates the juvenile travel and home safety businesses with products that include car seats, travel systems, safety gates, high chairs, play yards, stationary activity centers, infant carriers and doorway jumpers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: (206) 816-6603 Fax: (206) 816-6603 Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com The Defendant is represented by: Donald Byron Scaramastra, Esq. FOSTER GARVEY PC 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101-3292 Phone: (206) 464-3939 Email: don.scaramastra@foster.com EVENFLO COMPANY: Talutto Suit Moved From Florida to Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Debora De Souza Correa Talutto, Karyn Aly, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Evenflo Company, Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00437, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 19, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-11175-DJC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Evenflo Company, Inc., operates the juvenile travel and home safety businesses with products that include car seats, travel systems, safety gates, high chairs, play yards, stationary activity centers, infant carriers and doorway jumpers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George Franjola, Esq. ALLEN, DYER, DOPPELT, FRANJOLA & MILBRATH, P.A. One Orange Avenue, Suite 100 P.O. Box 3791 Orlando, FL 32802-3791 - and - Robert J. Neary, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 372-1800 Email: rn@kttlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David Axelman, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 200 S Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 400 Miami, FL 33131-5354 Phone: (786) 322-7395 Email: david.axelman@bclplaw.com EVERQUOTE INC: Faces Runyon Suit Over Unsolicited Calls ------------------------------------------------------- EverQuote, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled, Scott M. Runyon v EverQuote, Inc. On April 29, 2020, EverQuote was named as a defendant in a putative, statewide (Colorado) class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado captioned Scott M. Runyon v EverQuote, Inc. The Complaint alleges that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited marketing calls to his cellphone and those of other Colorado residents using an automatic telephone dialing system without prior express consent. Plaintiff seeks, among other forms of relief, statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 for each alleged violation and an order enjoining future violations. Plaintiff also asserts an individual claim against the Company for invasion of privacy arising out of the same calls to his cellphone and a claim for unspecified damages. No substantive proceedings have occurred in the case to date. The Company believes these claims lack merit, and intends to vigorously defend the Company against them. EverQuote, Inc. operates a leading online marketplace for insurance shopping, connecting consumers with insurance providers. The company's goal is to reshape insurance shopping for consumers and improve the way insurance providers, which the company views as including both carriers and agents, attract and connect with customers shopping for insurance. The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. EVERQUOTE INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held ----------------------------------------------------- EverQuote, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a New York trial court held a hearing earlier this month to consider final approval of the settlement in the class action suit entitled, In re EverQuote Securities Litigation, Index No. 651177-2019. On February 15, 2019, Sean F. Townsend, a purported holder of the Company's common stock, filed a civil action in the Supreme Court for the State of New York against the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer, general counsel, the Company's directors, and the Company's underwriters for its Initial Public Offering (IPO), captioned Townsend v. EverQuote, Inc. et al., Index No. 650997-2019. On February 26, 2019, Mark Townsend, a second purported holder of the Company's common stock, filed an identical civil action in the Supreme Court for the State of New York against the same defendants, captioned Townsend v. EverQuote, Inc. et al., Index No. 651177-2019. The plaintiffs alleged claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of a purported class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with its IPO. Those claims generally challenged as false or misleading certain of the Company's disclosures about its quote request volume. The plaintiffs sought, on behalf of themselves and the purported class, damages, costs and expenses of litigation, and rescission, disgorgement, or other equitable relief. After filing a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, the Company participated in a mediation and agreed to pay $4.8 million in settlement of all of plaintiffs' purported class claims, approximately $3.6 million of which is expected to be reimbursed by the Company's insurance provider. Accordingly, the Company recorded an other receivable of $3.6 million within prepaid expenses and other current assets and an accrued liability of $4.8 million within accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the balance sheet as of December 31, 2019 and March 31, 2020. The Company funded $1.2 million of this amount to an escrow agent during the three months ended March 31, 2020, which amount is included within prepaid expenses and other current assets as of March 31, 2020. The parties thereafter on February 6, 2020 filed a Stipulation of Settlement settling the litigation in principle, subject to final approval of the Court. The Court scheduled a final approval hearing for the settlement on June 11, 2020. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Additional information on the case is available at: http://www.everquotesecuritieslitigation.com/ EverQuote, Inc. operates a leading online marketplace for insurance shopping, connecting consumers with insurance providers. The company's goal is to reshape insurance shopping for consumers and improve the way insurance providers, which the company views as including both carriers and agents, attract and connect with customers shopping for insurance. The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Still Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Farmland Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion for leave by class plaintiff and the motion to adjourn class certification by the defendant in the "Turner Suit" remains pending. Discovery remains stayed pending decision on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. On July 11, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Kachmar v. Farmland Partners, Inc. ("the Kachmar Action"), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and certain of our officers by a purported Company stockholder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our disclosure related to the FPI Loan Program was materially false and misleading in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, captioned Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. (the "Mariconda Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging substantially identical claims as the Kachmar Action. Several purported shareholders moved to consolidate the Kachmar Action and the Mariconda Action and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff. On November 13, 2018, the plaintiff in the Kachmar action voluntarily dismissed the Kachmar Action. On December 3, 2018, the court appointed two purported stockholders of the Company, the Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia Turner (the "Turners"), as lead plaintiffs in the Mariconda Action. On March 11, 2019, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs and additional plaintiff Obelisk Capital Management filed an amended complaint in the Turner Action. On April 15, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the Turner Action. On June 18, 2019, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Turner Action. The defendants answered the amended complaint on July 2, 2019. On December 6, 2019, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Obelisk Capital Management from the case. In connection with Obelisk Capital Management's dismissal from the case, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on December 10, 2019, which automatically stayed discovery in the action pending the court's determination of the motion. On December 16, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On December 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants filed a response opposing the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on January 17, 2020, and filed a motion to adjourn the class certification briefing schedule in light of the discovery stay on January 29, 2020. These motions remain pending and discovery remains stayed pending decision on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Farmland said, "At this time, no class has been certified in the Turner Action and we do not know the amount of damages or other remedies being sought by the plaintiffs. The Company can provide no assurances as to the outcome of this litigation or provide an estimate of related expenses at this time." Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. FERNISHED INC: Rodriguez Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fernished, Inc. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Fernished, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02723 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fernished, Inc., is one of the largest corporate housing companies, providing furnished apartments globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com FIFTH THIRD: Zanni Fraud Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as Joanne Zanni, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Fifth Third Bancorp and Fifth Third Bank, National Association, Case No. 2020CH04022 (Filed April 29, 2020), was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 10, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-03407 to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiff brings claims for alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, conversion, unjust enrichment, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Fifth Third Bank is a bank headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, at Fifth Third Center. Fifth Third Bank is the principal subsidiary of Fifth Third Bancorp, a diversified bank holding company.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander Wright, Esq. Richik Sarkar, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 222 W. Adams Street, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 837-4322 Facsimile: (312) 372-6085 E-mail: Richik.Sarkar@Dinsmore.com Alexander.Wright@dinsmore.com - and - Thomas M. Hefferon, Esq. David L. Permut, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 1900 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4000 Facsimile: (202) 204-7279 E-mail: DPermut@goodwinlaw.com FLUSHING PARIS: Xingyan Cao Seeks Wages for Wedding Stores Staff ---------------------------------------------------------------- XINGYAN CAO, HE HE, BOZHENG JIA, YUE JIN, YING LI, YITING SU, HAOYI XIE, JUNWU YAO, RONG HUA ZHENG, and XINGWEI ZHU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLUSHING PARIS WEDDING CENTER LLC D/B/A PARIS WEDDING CENTER, LAFFECTION WEDDING LLC D/B/A LAFFECTION WEDDING, PARIS WEDDING CENTER CORP. D/B/A PARIS WEDDING CENTER, ROMANTIC PARIS LLC D/B/A ROMANTIC PARIS WEDDING, WEDDING IN PARIS LLC D/B/A WEDDING IN PARIS, MAX HUANG, SAU W LAM, AND FIONA RUIHUA YANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02336-RPK-RLM (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to pay the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated employees of the required minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as makeup artist, bookkeeper, photographer, receptionist, and/or videographer at their wedding photography business stores at various locations in New York sometime between March 2010 and March 2020. Flushing Paris Wedding Center LLC, d/b/a Paris Wedding Center, is an operator of wedding photography business located at 42-55 Main Street, Flushing, New York. Laffection Wedding LLC, d/b/a Laffection Wedding, is an operator of wedding photography business located at 35-56 Main Street, Flushing, New York. Paris Wedding Center Corp., d/b/a Paris Wedding Center, is an operator of wedding photography business located at 42-55 Main Street, Flushing, New York. Romantic Paris LLC, d/b/a Romantic Paris Wedding, is an operator of wedding photography business located at 35 East Broadway, 1st Floor, New York, New York. Wedding in Paris LLC, d/b/a Wedding in Paris, is an operator of wedding photography business located at 4711 8th Avenue, Unit 1A and 1B, Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Ave. Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com FORD MODELS: Little Appeals Decision in Pressley Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Roberta Little filed an appeal from the Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, issued on May 11, 2020, in the matter styled SHAWN PRESSLEY, ROBERTA LITTLE, MEL PLATZKE, Individually and as Class Representatives, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MODELS, INC., FORD MODELS HOLDINGS, LLC, WILHELMINA MODELS, INC., WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEXT MANAGEMENT, LLC, CLICK MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 653001/2016. The Supreme Court of New York County granted in part and denied in part the motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs are or were fashion models, who allege they worked as employees at one or more of the defendant modeling agencies but were mischaracterized as independent contractors, in violation of the New York Labor Law and had deductions taken from their paychecks illegally. They also allege they were deprived of compensation owed for use or re-use of their image in breach of individual form contracts they entered into with the Agencies. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares and Michelle Griffin Trotter (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. The appellate case is captioned as SHAWN PRESSLEY, ROBERTA LITTLE, MEL PLATZKE v. FORD MODELS, INC., FORD MODELS HOLDINGS, LLC, WILHELMINA MODELS, INC., WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEXT MANAGEMENT, LLC, CLICK MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2020-02731, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: First Judicial Department.[BN] Plaintiffs SHAWN PRESSLEY, ROBERTA LITTLE, MEL PLATZKE are represented by: Christopher D. Kercher, Esq. Kimberly E. Carson, Esq. Matthew Fox, Esq. Colin Steele, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010-1601 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 E-mail: christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com kimberlycarson@quinnemanuel.com matthewfox@quinnemanuel.com colinsteele@quinnemanuel.com - and - Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. Diane Cafferata, Esq. Danielle Shrader-Frechette, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 E-mail: adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com dianecafferata@quinnemanuel.com daniellefrechette@quinnemanuel.com FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 16 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Forescout Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSCT) between February 6, 2020 and May 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Forescout investors under the federal securities laws To join the Forescout class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1875.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 that: (1) Forescout was experiencing a significant and disproportionate decline in its financial performance; (2) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Forescout's planned acquisition by Advent International Corp.; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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 August 10, 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-1875.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] FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Vincent Wong Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Forescout Technologies Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/forescout-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=7342&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 10, 2020 Class Period: February 6, 2020 - May 15, 2020 Allegations against FSCT include that: (1) Forescout was experiencing a significant and disproportionate decline in its financial performance; (2) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Forescout's planned acquisition by Advent International Corp.; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] FRONTIER AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Travel Vouchers ---------------------------------------------------------- Lori Jane Gliha, writing for KDVR, reports that at least five federal class-action lawsuits filed against Frontier Airlines since April allege the company failed to provide proper refunds to customers whose travel plans were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. "Instead of fulfilling its obligations under federal law and honoring its passengers' contractual rights, Frontier has engaged in a pattern and practice of denying refund payments to its passengers for flights cancelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic," one suit, filed in the name of plaintiff Shirley Johnson, alleged. The federal complaint said Johnson bought a round-trip ticket for a flight that the airline eventually canceled due to COVID-19. "Under Frontier's Contract of Carriage, Ms. Johnson had the contractual right to a refund. But instead of honoring this contractual right, Frontier issued Ms. Johnson a voucher for future travel and refuses to refund Ms. Johnson the amount she paid for her ticket," the complaint said. According to a Frontier spokesperson, the company cannot comment on pending litigation. "Covid-19 has had an extraordinary impact on the entire travel industry and the traveling public. Frontier has strived to accommodate customers compassionately and fairly. At all times, we have remained in full compliance with DOT rules and regulations governing such matters," said Jennifer De La Cruz, a spokesperson for Frontier. De La Cruz also said that passengers who were issued a credit during the COVID-19 pandemic were given 90 days to use their credit to book another reservation. "Note that travel does not need to occur within the 90-day period," she said. "Travel can occur anytime through the end of the airline's published schedule which currently runs through September 2021. Additionally, Frontier's standard change policy allows customers to change their reservation for free outside 60 days of the scheduled date of travel." "As a citizen of Colorado, my firm and our clients want the companies who call our great state home to be a law-abiding and good corporate citizens, especially in a time such as this," said Scott Kamber, Denver-based attorney who filed a similar class action lawsuit in April. "Many people need the money they were going to use for travel to feed their families and get through this crisis and vouchers do not help them do that," he said. Kamber also represents the Atencio family, which is not named as a plaintiff in his suit, but had to cancel flights due to the pandemic. "I did advise Frontier multiple times that we were in a financial crisis and that we really needed them to release our money from being basically hostage," said Amanda Atencio, whose family spent more than $4,000 on flights to Mexico but canceled them when the Department of Defense restricted travel for thousands of military and civilian personnel - including her husband - at the height of the pandemic. "They would not refund us because we voluntarily canceled our flights," said Atencio. "It wasn't like we voluntarily canceled it, the DOD issued a ban, and there was a pandemic," she said, explaining that the airline would only offer vouchers so the family could book a future trip. "By not giving their customers the cash refunds to which they are legally entitled, Frontier has made the judgment that its corporate finances are more important than the personal finances of the Atencios'. . . and the tens of thousands of other class members who counted themselves as loyal customers of Frontier," said Kamber. [GN] GATESTONE & CO: Herskovits Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gatestone & Co. International, Inc. The case is styled as Israel Herskovits, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gatestone & Co. International, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-04720 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Gatestone & Co. International Inc. operates as an employment agency. The Company specializes in accounts receivable management and business process outsourcing solutions, as well as provides training programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Michael Barshay, Esq. Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, 5th Floor Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com csanders@barshaysanders.com GEORGIA: Bowman Files TCPA Suit vs. Sen. Unterman in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renee S. Unterman. The case is styled as Matthew Bowman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Renee Unterman, Case No. 1:20-cv-02612-JPB (N.D. Ga., June 19, 2019). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Renee S. Unterman is an American politician. A Republican, she has represented the 45th District in the Georgia State Senate since 2003.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shireen Hormozdi, Esq. HORMOZDI LAW FIRM, LLC 1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175 Norcross, GA 30093 Phone: (678) 394-7795 Fax: (866) 395-0967 Email: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com GOLDEN STAR: Share Price Artificially Inflated, Schmidt Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES F. SCHMIDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN STAR RESOURCES LTD., SAM COETZER, ANDREW WRAY, DANIEL OWIREDU, and ANDRE VAN NIEKERK, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04701 (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired Golden Star securities from February 20, 2019 through July 30, 2019, alleges that the Defendants released false and misleading statements about the performance and operation of Golden Star's Prestea mine to artificially inflate the company's share price. At the start of the Class period, Golden Star claimed that the operational changes made to the mine led to tremendous improvement to its performance and that the previous blasting issues had been rectified. Golden Star also provided optimistic guidance throughout the Class Period regarding the company's production goals, the quality and grade of that production, as well as the cost per ounce of that production for both Prestea and Wassa mines. In reality, however, Golden Star's statements about improvements at Prestea were false, and the company's financial guidance for both Prestea and Wassa mines was baseless. On July 31, 2019, Golden Star announced disappointing second quarter 2019 financial results and admitted a list of issues that had negatively impacted its mines, including the use of insufficient geological and geotechnical data and poor drilling strategies and techniques. In reaction to the company's disclosures, Golden Star's stock price declined $0.75 per share, or 17.44%, from a closing price of $4.30 per share on July 30, 2019, to a closing price of $3.55 per share on July 31, 2019. As a result of the Defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered significant damages and losses. Golden Star Resources Ltd. is a mid-tier gold mining company with operating mines located in Ghana. Its principal executive offices are located in Toronto, Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and – Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, 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 - and – Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: 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 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com GRAND CANYON: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 13 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Grand Canyon Education, Inc. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below 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, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOPE) Class Period: January 5, 2018 - January 27, 2020 Deadline: July 13, 2020 For more info: www.bgandg.com/lope The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (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. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 / info@bgandg.com [GN] GREAT LAKES EDUCATION: Calif Class Suit Filed on Borrowers' Behalf ------------------------------------------------------------------ Susan Tompor, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that Jeramiah Harrington struggled for nearly a year to drive his credit score up from a grim 527 to pretty good 682. Then in a matter of days, his score unexpectedly tumbled by 91 points in May. What's worse: He apparently didn't do anything wrong to drive that score back below 600. He simply was caught in a COVID-19-related glitch connected to some student loans. "I had never even been close to 700," said Harrington, 38, who lives in Flint Township, Michigan. Harrington, who works as a cartographer at a civil engineering company, wondered just how long it would take to see his score regain lost ground. But the good news is that a fix apparently may be in the works, as he saw his score go up somewhat as of June 7. Nearly 5 million student loan borrowers were harmed by an unusual mistake that was triggered after new rules offered debt relief during the COVID-19 crisis, according to consumer watchdogs. Student loan servicer Great Lakes Education Loan Services allegedly mishandled reporting the student loan status and provided inaccurate information about millions of student loan borrowers to Equifax, TransUnion and Experian -- which reported that wrong information to third parties, such as Credit Karma, advocates for borrowers say. The nonprofit Student Borrower Protection Center helped to bring about a class-action complaint filed in California on behalf of the borrowers against Great Lakes, a subsidiary of Lincoln-based Nelnet; the credit reporting agencies; and VantageScore. The major reporting bureaus own VantageScore Solutions, a credit score model, and VantageScore allegedly treated the inaccurate information in a way that hurt credit scores of many consumers. Jeff Richardson, vice president for marketing and communications for VantageScore Solutions, said the company would not comment due to ongoing litigation. Nelnet spokesperson Ben Kiser apologized for the inconvenience, saying Great Lakes remains committed to resolving the issue promptly. Great Lakes, Kiser said in an email, on May 6 reported information relating to repayment borrowers to the credit reporting agencies in a way it believed would not have a negative impact on credit scores. But by May 11, some consumers began raising concerns about their falling credit scores. "Immediately, Great Lakes began researching these borrower accounts and determined there was an inconsistency between Great Lakes reporting and that of other student loan servicers," he said. "Instead of reporting borrowers as current with monthly payments of $0, Great Lakes reported borrowers as current with deferred monthly payments of $0," he said. Great Lakes acknowledged the inconsistent coding and let borrowers know adjustments would be made in the reporting. "An updated credit file was provided to the credit reporting agencies on May 15," Kiser said, "and all four reporting agencies have processed the file. Our priority is providing an exceptional customer experience. When we fall short of our goal, our focus is to communicate openly and resolve the issue as soon as possible." What should student loan borrowers expect? The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act states that borrowers aren't supposed to be charged a dime in interest and automatically will see the interest rate on most federal student loans drop to 0% from March 13 through Sept. 30. Federal student and parent loans must be held by the U.S. Department of Education to be eligible. But each month was to be treated in the credit reporting process as if a loan payment was made. Yet some student loan borrowers began discovering dramatic drops in their credit scores in May. For consumers, it's yet another headache associated with lost jobs, fewer paid hours and other financial challenges related to the COVID-19 crisis. Harrington already faces enough hurdles. He has more than $150,000 in student loan debt after attending college for several years and ultimately receiving a bachelor's degree in Outdoor Recreation Leadership and Management from Northern Michigan University in 2014 and a master's degree in 2016 in Integrated Geospatial Technologies from Michigan Technological University in the state's Upper Peninsula. He also completed a graduate certificate program through Central Michigan University Global Campus online to receive a college teaching certificate. Five years ago, he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and decided that some background in education would be a good in case his symptoms ever prompted him to seek a career change. "I could always teach online from home," he said. Debt relief was welcome this spring but the credit scoring mix-up came at a time when he was working hard to rebuild his score. Harrington had been regularly monitoring his credit score via Credit Karma after struggling in the past to keep up on bills. He had been in a car accident a few years ago, unexpectedly had to buy a car and then his score dropped even further when he took out the new car loan, as he juggled student loan debt and medical bills. To get things on track, he diligently made sure to make all his payments on time and pay more than the minimum due. Yet, he's now hopeful, some fixes will take place sooner rather than later. On June 15, Harrington said that according to Credit Karma his TransUnion score increased 85 points as of June 7. "So most of that 91 point drop has been recovered," Harrington said. "The Equifax has gone up only 2 points and sits at 590 for now." All credit scores didn't plunge Another plus: Not everyone experienced a shocking drop in their credit scores. Chi Chi Wu, staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, said the Great Lakes accounts were wrongly marked as "deferred," which influenced the drop in the Vantage scores used by Credit Karma. But Wu said the mistake did not lead to a drop in FICO scores, so someone who was seeking a loan might have been OK if the lender was using the FICO score, as most do. FICO does not consider deferments in its score. Before you apply for a loan or mortgage, it may be wise to ask what kind of scoring model the lender will use. You'd also want to see how lenders are reporting your payments - and how any agreements reached to postpone paying on mortgages or car loans show up on your credit reports. "People who are having economic hardship during COVID-19 should be checking their credit report regularly," Wu said. Wu noted that some consumers have reported that their credit reports were wrongly marked as "in forbearance," when they simply inquired about a COVID-19-related mortgage forbearance, which also lowered their VantageScore. VantageScore said on May 15 that it will adjust its scoring model to "minimize the potential of any negative impact associated uniquely with the usage of forbearance and deferment codes." [GN] GROUPON INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 29 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Groupon Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Groupon, Inc. (GRPN) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/groupon-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7348&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2020 Class Period: November 4, 2019 - February 18, 2020 Allegations against GRPN include 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. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] GROWERSHOUSE LLC: Misclassifies Sales Staff, Buber et al Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SATCHIDANANDA BUBER and JOSEPH TREJO, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. GROWERSHOUSE LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, GG GROWTH, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, NATHAN LIPTON and JOHN/JANE DOW LIPTON, a married couple, and PAUL LIPTON and JOHN/JANE DOE LIPTON, a married couple, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00219-RM (D. Ariz., May 21, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were both employees of GrowerHouse from May 21, 2017 until October 2019 as sales personnel. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of Defendants regularly worked in excess 40 hours during one or more workweeks without receiving overtime compensation from May 21, 2017. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees' overtime wages for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and failed to record all the time that employees have worked for the benefit of Defendants. GrowersHouse LLC and GG Growth, LLC sell hydroponic goods and other indoor gardening supplies. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberto C. Garcia, Esq. David M. Tangren, Esq. FARHANG & MEDCOFF 4801 East Broadway Blvd., Ste. 311 Tucson, AZ 85711 Tel: 520-214-2000 Fax: 520-214-2001 Emails: rgarcia@farhangmedcoff.com dtangren@farhangmedcoff.com HALIFAX-YARMOUTH ARCHDIOCESE: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Francis Campbell, writing for Chronicle Herald, reports that hundreds of Nova Scotians who say they were sexuallly abused by Roman Catholic priests dating back to 1960 are likely to be part of a lawsuit launched against the Halifax-Yarmouth Archdiocese and its archbishop. A notice appeared recently on the websites of both the archdiocese and the McKiggan-Hebert law firm in Halifax, who filed the class action with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in August 2018 on behalf of Douglas Champagne and other sexual abuse survivors. "There is a court order in place that has established the steps that need to be taken to notify potential class members of the claim and this is one of the steps," said lawyer John McKiggan. "One of the requirements is to provide notice to potential class members telling them there is a class action out here and you can participate if you want to." Champagne, according to the court filing, suffered lasting and permanent effects from sexual abuse at the hands of Father George Epoch while Epoch worked as a priest at the Canadian Martyrs Church in Halifax and Champagne was an altar boy. The class action says priests employed by the archdiocese, which amalgamated the former dioceses of Halifax and Yarmouth in 2011, had for decades "sexually assaulted and battered Catholic worshippers who attended their parishes." Responsible for the spiritual guidance and care of the claimants, the lawsuit says priests developed a relationship of psychological intimacy with their victims that provided them the opportunity to "engage in acts of sexual assault and battery." Returned to parishes without notice Several of the abusive priests were criminally convicted but many others were sent off to a church-run treatment facility in Ontario and then placed back in archdiocesan parishes with no warning or notice to parishioners of the priests' past actions, the class action claims. The archdiocese or previous dioceses had sole authority to "appoint, train, supervise, reprimand and dismiss priests" but by failing to do so was negligent and in breach of a fiduciary duty to the victims of the alleged abuse, the class action maintains. "The defendant is also vicariously liable for the archdiocese's priests' conduct." In a June letter to parishioners posted on the archdiocesan website, Archbishop Anthony Mancini said there is no avoiding the truth or the fact of sexual abuse, along with the moral and emotional effect which it has had on parishioners and priests who have been scandalized and hurt by this crisis. "It should be hard to face, because such crimes and the devastation which sexual abuse has had on the victims cannot and must not be ignored or swept under the carpet," Mancini wrote. "Transparency, accountability and responsibility have become norms when facing sexual abuse in the church these past years. The first concern that I have as archbishop is the healing and reconciliation of the victims. Acknowledging the unacceptable behaviour by priests who were expected to be pastoral care providers, not pastoral care abusers, is the necessary step that will bring healing, liberation and forgiveness." Can't estimate cost Mancini said the class action will provide an opportunity for all remaining victims who have not previously settled claims to come forward and advance a legal claim for compensation. "It is not possible for me to say what this legal action will cost financially for the Yarmouth corporation, the Halifax corporation and our church generally or how it will impact each of our parishes," Mancini said in the letter. "As we go forward with this class action, I wish to clearly state that our restructuring of parishes was not motivated by this class action lawsuit or the obligation to face the financial cost of this lawsuit." The archdiocesan restructuring and parish renewal that came into effect in January transitioned 65 former parishes and missions into 20 new amalgamated parishes. In bordering Antigonish Diocese, the final installment in a $16-million compensation settlement with more than 140 complainants in a sex abuse class action against priests there was paid out in 2012. To pay off the settlement, the Antigonish Diocese was forced to put about 150 properties up for sale and more than 100 parishes were drained of their savings. McKiggan, who represented the plaintiffs in the Antigonish class action, said the settlement wasn't divided evenly among all the abuse victims. "The parties had a professional mediator assist us in negotiating a process in which the (individual) claims would be evaluated -- validated and quantified, validated saying did it really happen and quantified saying if it did happen, what is it worth." McKiggan said the problem of sexual abuse of children by clergy is a worldwide issue that is not isolated to any particular diocese or to any religious denomination. "I haven't seen any reason to believe that the incidents of sexual abuse of priests in the Halifax-Yarmouth diocese would be any less or any more than in Antigonish," McKiggan said. "If you look at it proportionately,the Antigonish diocese is about half the size of Halifax, so I would assume that we would see at least as many (complainants) as we did in Antigonish, and perhaps twice that." The option for people to participate or to opt out of the class action against the Halifax archdiocese is open until October. In the meantime, the members of the class action and the archdiocese can try to hammer out a financial settlement. "The negotiations can happen in the interim," McKiggan said. "That's fairly typical of class actions. You are always trying to find a way to resolve the claim so that both sides don't have to incur the cost of a trial." If an agreement cannot be reached by the January 2021 court date set down, McKiggan said the issue will go to court. [GN] HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 6 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Hallmark Financial Services Inc. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below 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, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL) Class Period: March 5, 2019 - March 17, 2020 Deadline: July 6, 2020 For more info: www.bgandg.com/hall The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked effective internal controls over accounting and financial reporting related to reserves for unpaid losses; (2) the Company improperly accounted for reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business; (3) as a result, Hallmark Financial would be forced to report a $63.8 million loss development for prior underwriting years; (4) as a result, Hallmark Financial would exit from its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 / info@bgandg.com [GN] HALLMARK FINANCIAL: RM LAW Files Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------- RM LAW, P.C. on June 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. ("Hallmark Financial" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HALL) securities during the period from March 5, 2019 through March 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Hallmark Financial shareholders may, no later than July 6, 2020, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of Hallmark Financial and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign up online, click here. On March 2, 2020, Hallmark Financial announced its decision to exit from its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business and reported a $63.8 million loss development for prior underwriting years. On this news, Hallmark's stock price fell $2.10 per share, 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, Hallmark's stock price fell $2.39 per share, or over 29%, to close at $5.71 per share on March 12, 2020. Then, on March 17, 2020, Hallmark filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 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, Hallmark's stock price fell an additional $0.08 per share, or 2.5%, to close at $3.12 per share on March 18, 2020. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than July 6, 2020, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C. (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by email at rm@maniskas.com or click here. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C. please visit our website by clicking here. RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW, P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. CONTACT: RM LAW, P.C. Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 484-324-6800 844-291-9299 rm@maniskas.com [GN] HALLMARK FINC'L: Block & Leviton Reminds of July 6 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a national securities litigation firm, announces that securities class action have been filed against Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL). Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed below to move the court. There is no cost or obligation to you. HALL Shareholders – Click Here: https://shareholder.law/hallmark Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL) Lead Plaintiff Deadline of July 6, 2020 During the month of March 2020, Hallmark's shares plummeted after a series of announcements. First, on March 2, 2020, Hallmark revealed its decision to "exit its Binding Primary Auto business." In one day, Hallmark's share price fell $2.10, to close at $12.23 per share. Next, on March 11, 2020, Hallmark announced that it had fired its public accounting firm over "a disagreement." On this news, the stock fell from $8.10 to $5.71 per share. Then on March 17, 2020, Hallmark filed a letter with the SEC indicating that the former public accounting firm had "expanded significantly the scope of its audit on January 31, 2020." On this news, the stock fell to just $3.12 per share. If you purchased or acquired shares of HBB and have questions about your legal rights or possess information relevant to these matters, please contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via email at cases@blockesq.com, or via the links provided above. Block & Leviton LLP is a firm dedicated to representing investors and maintaining the integrity of the country's financial markets. The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional investors as well as individual investors in securities litigation throughout the United States. The firm's lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for its clients. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. CONTACT: BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St., Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 Email: cases@blockesq.com SOURCE: Block & Leviton LLP www.blockesq.com [GN] HAMILTON BEACH: Block & Leviton Reminds of July 21 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a national securities litigation firm, announces that securities class action have been filed against Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB). Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed below to move the court. There is no cost or obligation to you. HBB Shareholders - Click Here: https://shareholder.law/hbb Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB) Lead Plaintiff Deadline of July 21, 2020 On May 11, 2020, Hamilton Beach Brands disclosed that it could not timely file its first quarter 2020 quarterly financial 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." In addition, the Company stated that its "Audit Review Committee has commenced an internal investigation, with the assistance of outside counsel and other third party experts," concerning "the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary." On this news, shares of Hamilton Beach Brands common stock fell by approximately 9%, or $1.03 per share, to close at just $10.43 per share on unusually heavy trading volume. If you purchased or acquired shares of HBB and have questions about your legal rights or possess information relevant to these matters, please contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via email at cases@blockesq.com, or via the links provided above. Block & Leviton LLP is a firm dedicated to representing investors and maintaining the integrity of the country's financial markets. The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional investors as well as individual investors in securities litigation throughout the United States. The firm's lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for its clients. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. CONTACT: BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St., Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 Email: cases@blockesq.com SOURCE: Block & Leviton LLP www.blockesq.com [GN] HAMILTON BEACH: Chen Sues Over 9% Decline in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------- YUNG-CHIH CHEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS HOLDING COMPANY, GREGORY H. TREPP, and MICHELLE O. MOSIER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02323 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Hamilton securities between February 27, 2020, and May 8, 2020, both dates inclusive, 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 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. According to the complaint, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies throughout the Class Period. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or 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; (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; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 11, 2020, during pre-market hours, Hamilton announced that it could not timely file its 1Q20 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." Following these disclosures, Hamilton's stock price fell $1.03 per share, or 8.99%, to close at $10.43 per share on May 11, 2020. Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company is a Virginia-based operating holding company for Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., a designer, marketer and distributor of a wide range of branded small electric household and specialty housewares appliances, as well as commercial products for restaurants, fast food chains, bars and hotels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (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 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. PORTNOY LAW FIRM 8240 Beverly Blvd., Suite 9 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 692-8883 Email: lesley@portnoylaw.com HANOVER INSURANCE: Stanford Sues Over Preemptively Denied Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- STANFORD DENTAL, PLLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC. and CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:20-cv-11384-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 10, 2020), seeks declaratory and other relief on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other policyholders in the state of Michigan, whose claims were preemptively denied by the Defendants. The Plaintiff purchased a standard-form all-risk "Businessowners Coverage Form" property and casualty insurance policy from the Defendants. The Policy promised to provide coverage in the event of a risk causing "direct physical loss of" or "damage to Covered Property" at Plaintiff's premises. The State of Michigan under its emergency police powers issued Emergency Order No. 2020-2, effective March 24, 2020. The Order prevented the Plaintiff from operating its dental practice. The Plaintiff contends that there is coverage against losses and damages suffered by Michigan policyholders under each of three coverages. The three coverages are Business Income Coverage, Extended Expense Coverage, and Civil Authority Coverage provided by the Defendants' standard-form policies of insurance. The Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that the "virus exclusion" is inapplicable, procured through fraud or misrepresentation, and therefore void. THG sells insurance in Michigan substantially similar to that purchased by Stanford through captive insurance companies other than Citizens.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Kochanowski, Esq. Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Robert B. Sickels, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: 248-355-0300 E-mail: akochanowski@sommerspc.com jthompson@sommerspc.com rsickels@sommerspc.com - and - Kenneth F. Neuman, Esq. Jennifer M. Grieco, Esq. Stephen T. McKenney, Esq. ALTIOR LAW 401 S. Old Woodward, Suite 460 Birmingham, MI 48009 Telephone: (248) 594-5252 E-mail: kneuman@altiorlaw.com jgrieco@altiorlaw.com smckenney@altiorlaw.com HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Appeals Decision in Greene Suit to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Harley-Davidson, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Matthew Greene v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01647-RGK-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges that Harley-Davidson deceptively stated on motorcycle price hang tags attached to new, assembled motorcycles that the retail prices for those motorcycles did not include freight and dealer preparation/setup fees. The Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, punitive and/or exemplary damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Greene v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-55281, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MATTHEW D. GREENE, an individual, on behalf of himself, the proposed class(es), all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, is represented by: Ross Hyslop, Esq. PESTOTNIK LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 1025 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 365-9065 E-mail: hyslop@pestotnik.com Defendants-Appellants HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, and HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY OPERATIONS, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, are represented by: James S. Azadian, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 457-1779 E-mail jazadian@dykema.com HEALTH-ADE LLC: Faces Rodriguez ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health-Ade LLC. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Health-Ade LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02721-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Health-Ade kombucha offers a bubbly and delicious probiotic tea.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: HEBT). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: HEBT) Class Period: April 24, 2020 to June 3, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 10, 2020 On June 3, 2020, Grizzly Research presented a report alleging that Hebron is an "insider enrichment scheme without economic basis," citing questionable transactions including an undisclosed related party transaction for nearly $26 million. On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.26, or nearly 37%, to close at $14.29 per share on June 3, 2020. The stock continued to decline the next trading session by $2.51, or nearly 18%, to close at $11.78 per share on June 4, 2020. The complaint, filed on June 9, 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 many of Hebron's acquisitions, including Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved undisclosed related parties; (2) that the Company's disclosure controls regarding related party transactions was ineffective; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the Hebron Technology class action go to: https://bespc.com/HEBT 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 [GN] HIRE TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Workman Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WORKMAN, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIRE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00070-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., May 26, 2020) is a collective action complaint against Defendant to recover all unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendant from April 2018 through the present as an hourly paid Electrical Planner. According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly works more than 12-hour daily shifts and over 75 hours per week. However, instead of paying Plaintiff at one-and-one-half times his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40, Defendant paid Plaintiff a "straight time" pay for the overtime hours he worked. Hire Technologies, Inc. offers "full staffing services for a range of industries, including information technology, healthcare, electric utilities, and even nuclear services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy A. Lanier, Esq. TROY A LANIER, PC 430 Ellis Street Augusta, GA 30901 Tel: 706-823-6800 Email: tlanier@tlanierlaw.com HOGAN SERVICES: Underpays Fleet Managers, Croskey Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA CROSKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOGAN SERVICES, INC.; HOGAN TRANSPORTS, INC.; and HOGAN DEDICATED SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case: 2:20-cv-03062-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, June 15, 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 Croskey was employed by the Defendants as fleet manager. Hogan Services, Inc was founded in 1954. The company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract or fee basis. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 787-4878 Facsimile: (614) 957-7515 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com HOMES.COM INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Charman Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- THANE CHARMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMES.COM, INC., Defendant, Case 3:20-cv-01086-L-KSC (S.D. Cal., June 15, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Homes.com Inc is the real estate and home service industry's technology-enabled business solution provider. The Company provides web site development and hosting services for real estate agents and brokers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and – Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108 St. George, UT 84790 Telephone: (800) 400-6806 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com HORIZONS ETFS: Torkin Manes Discusses Ruling in Wright Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Marco P. Falco, Esq. -- mfalco@torkinmanes.com -- of Torkin Manes LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that where a person or corporation suffers a pure financial loss, contract law ordinarily comes to the rescue. It places the wronged party in the same position as if the agreement had been performed, and awards damages for that breach. But what happens when there is no contract and a plaintiff only suffers economic harm, without any other injury to their person or property? For years, Canadian Courts have made a concerted effort to limit when a party can rely on tort law to claim pure economic loss. Adopting a "rights-based" approach, the Courts have embraced the principle that tort law compensates actual rights like damage to personal security or property, not harm to their pure economic interests. A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Wright v. Horizons ETFS Management (Canada) Inc., 2020 ONCA 337, however, has arguably expanded the scope of recovery for economic loss under negligence law. Wright opens the door to novel claims for financial harm caused by the "negligent performance of a service". Allegedly Defective Financial Products Wright involved a proposed class action resulting from the failure of the defendant's proprietary derivatives-based, exchange-traded fund (the "Fund"). In the Fund's prospectus, the defendant Fund manager warned that the Fund was "highly speculative" and "involv[ed] a high degree of risk". The proposed class of plaintiffs were owners of units of the Fund who suffered dramatic financial losses when the Fund lost almost 90% of its value on February 5, 2018. The Fund never regained its value. It was closed by the defendant on the basis that it "no longer offer[ed] an acceptable risk/reward trade-off for investors". The representative plaintiff, Wright, sought to certify an action in negligence and for prospectus misrepresentation under the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.S.5. The action alleged that the Fund manager was negligent in designing, developing, offering and promoting a financial product that was not adequately tested before launching. In other words, the Fund was doomed to fail. On the motion to certify the class action, the motion judge refused certification on the basis that the plaintiffs' claim disclosed no cause of action under the Securities Act and in negligence. With respect to the negligence claim, the judge held that the case did not fall within one of the recognized categories for recovery of pure financial harm. The Court of Appeal reversed, in part. It held, amongst other things, that it was not plain and obvious that the claim for pure economic loss based on the defendant's negligent performance of a service did not give rise to a reasonable cause of action. Why Recovery for Economic Loss is Limited in Tort The Court of Appeal's analysis began with reference to the Supreme Court of Canada's leading decision, Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc., 2017 SCC 63. In Livent, the Court established five types of cases for recovery in negligence for economic loss that is not "causally connected" to physical or property damage: 1. The independent liability of statutory public authorities; 2. Negligent misrepresentation; 3. Negligent performance of a service; 4. Negligent supply of shoddy goods or structures; and 5. Relational economic loss. While the list from Livent is not exhaustive, it is necessarily limited. Canadian Courts restrict tort recovery for pure economic loss where is no physical harm or damage to property for a number of policy reasons. These include the fact that right-based theorists of tort law recognize a person's right to personal security and property rights, but not a "primary right related to purely economic interest" (see A. Linden, Canadian Tort Law, 11th ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2018) at 408). Other policy considerations identified in Wright include: . . . the possibility of indeterminate liability, the difference between social loss (such as physical harm) and the transfer of wealth from one person or group to another, the relevance of existing and potential contractual allocation of loss, and the fact that negligently-caused purely financial injury does not constitute a violation of a recognized legal right. When looking at a claim for pure economic loss, it is therefore important to consider whether the plaintiff had an opportunity to protect itself by contract from the risk of economic loss and declined to do so . . . With these factors in mind, the Court in Wright considered the merits of the plaintiffs' claim that the defendant manager's design and promotion of the Fund amounted to the "negligent supply of shoddy goods" and the "negligent performance of a service". A Novel Claim for the Negligent Performance of a Service First, the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's dismissal of Wright's claim for pure economic loss resulting from the defendant's negligent supply of shoddy goods. The Court noted that absent a "dangerous physical defect", a claim for economic loss from the supply of shoddy goods was bound to fail. However, the Court was prepared the recognize that the plaintiffs had a reasonable prospect of showing that the defendant's conduct met the threshold of the second category of economic loss, the "negligent performance of a service". There was a "relationship of proximity" between the defendant and the plaintiffs. The defendant "undertook to create and sell a Fund that was suitable for some investors and, on the pleading as drafted, it was not". According to the Claim, investors were not given sufficient information about the nature and extent of the risks. The risk of injury from "producing a product doomed to fail was reasonably foreseeable". Even if, however, Wright's claim did not fall within a recognized category for tortious economic loss, the Court nevertheless allowed it to proceed as a "novel claim for economic loss resulting from the negligent performance of a service". The Court noted that there was a proximate relationship resulting from the defendant's undertaking that invited the plaintiff's reasonable reliance in this case. In the Court's view, the defendant could have a duty to the plaintiff investors based on its duty act in good faith: . . . as the Fund manager, [the defendant] undertook to its investors to act honestly, in good faith and in the best interests of the investment fund . . . Assuming the allegations in the pleading are proven, [the defendant] created a Fund that was not suitable for any investors because the design flaw rendered it doomed to fail . . . The failure to provide full disclosure of the risks and/or the fact that the product was doomed to fail and the Fund manager's failure to develop a viable strategy for the Fund might constitute a breach of a prima facie duty of care and/or breach of the fund's managers' statutory duties . . . From a policy perspective, there was no good reason at the pleadings stage not to allow Wright's novel claim to proceed: . . . The risk of loss cannot be addressed by contract because this was not a vendor-purchaser relationship. Nor, on the claim as pleaded, can it be addressed by insurance, or due diligence by Class members . . . it does not seem apparent that imposing a duty [of care in this case] would create liability toward an indeterminate number of persons. Allowing the claim might cause fund managers . . . to exercise caution and control in designing investment products and ensure that all material facts are provided to investors . . . The Implications of Wright The extent to which Wright has expanded claims for pure economic loss absent physical or proprietary harm is, as of now, uncertain. On a rights-based theory of tort, Wright is expansive. It recognizes the possibility of pure economic claims for the "negligent performance" of the design and promotion of an allegedly defective financial product. There was no personal or physical damage to the plaintiffs, but the Court was clearly guided by: (i) the allegation that the defendant allegedly failed to meet its undertaking to the plaintiffs; and (ii) the risk of economic injury to the plaintiffs as a result of the defendant's purported conduct was foreseeable. On the facts, these were wrongs that were and could not be addressed by contract. Whether a negligence claim is the appropriate way to redress them remains to be seen. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. [GN] INDIANA: Foster Care System Class Action Stays on Track ------------------------------------------------------- Emma Cueto, writing for Law360, reports that a putative class action on behalf of children in the Indiana foster care system has mostly survived the state's bid for a quick win thanks to a team of Kirkland & Ellis LLP attorneys and two nonprofit partners, though the government is still hoping to short-circuit the litigation. The children in the suit, who are also represented by A Better Childhood and Indiana Disability Rights, have alleged that the state of Indiana has failed to provide safe and appropriate foster care placements for the children in its care, including by placing many children with disabilities in institutions instead of community-based environments. Children are often separated from their siblings and can spend lengthy stays in emergency shelter care, according to the complaint. The suit also alleges that internal problems at the Department of Child Services contribute to the problems, including high caseloads for case managers and trouble retaining personnel, leading to high turnover. "We view [this case] as impactful for thousands of kids in the Indiana foster care system," said Aaron Marks, a litigation partner with Kirkland & Ellis. DCS said in a statement after the suit was first filed that the timing of the case was "puzzling," and argued that it had been making improvements. It told Law360 in an email, "DCS has continued to make significant progress that results in better outcomes for Hoosier children and families, even during these unprecedented times. The agency continues to see a downward trend in the number of children in foster care and residential placements as we focus on providing the right care to the right child at the right time." Nikki Gray, an attorney with Indiana Disability Rights, told Law360 that ultimately the team representing the children would hope to work with the state in addressing some of the issues identified in the lawsuit. So far, however, she said, DCS has not seemed open to that and has in fact been fairly aggressive in its response to the suit. The case survived a motion to dismiss in May, but since then, the state has taken the unusual step of filing a second motion to dismiss, saying that the first victory revealed additional flaws in the case. In ruling on the first motion, the Indiana federal court agreed to nix a claim brought under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, but said that most of the claims in the case should stand. The decision rejected the argument that the case would interfere with a state court proceeding -- in this case, the children's "children in need of services" or CHINS proceedings -- and ruled that the court did have jurisdiction over the proposed class action. "Plaintiffs are not challenging the state-court custody orders themselves; they are challenging defendants' actions and policies that led to those orders," the court said. Following the decision, however, the state of Indiana filed a new motion to dismiss, arguing that if the suit did not intend to rectify errors in the CHINS proceedings, the claims lacked the necessary standing to proceed. "Each plaintiff complains in this federal court about circumstances that his or her CHINS court regularly reviews, has ordered, [or] may modify," the motion argued. "Then, each plaintiff requests in this federal court assorted injunctions and declarations that -- plaintiffs admit -- would not (indeed could not) change such circumstances." Marks declined to comment on the merits of the new motion, but said that he did not consider it to be procedurally proper for the state to try for "a second bite of the apple." Gray said it was "disappointing" to see the state push back so forcefully against an attempt to reform its foster care system. She noted that early in the case, the state also motioned for the adults acting as "next friend" of the children in the suit to be removed. "We have very young plaintiffs; we have plaintiffs who have been in the system for many years; one of our plaintiffs has significant developmental disabilities and limited verbal skills and has been living in a nursing home," she said. "For DCS to then say that these children don't require this extra level of representation to protect their interests, it was a little disheartening." Despite the challenges, Gray said she was glad that the suit was happening. For years, she said, Indiana Disability Rights had been advocating for individuals in the system, but it had never had the resources to push for systemic change, even though the organization believed that the foster care system required it. Having the backing of A Better Childhood, which is a national organization, and of Kirkland & Ellis, she said, has made a big difference. "It's night and day for us," she said. Marks told Law360 that the case was a good example of the Kirkland & Ellis approach to pro bono, saying that the firm likes to pursue cases with the potential to make a broad impact. And for Marks, the case also speaks to him personally. "This is my first foray into litigation involving the foster care system, but I also have three kids of my own," he said. "Certainly a driving factor for me in choosing the areas in which I do pro bono work is to help other children have opportunities, to have [better] day-to-day lives." [GN] INT'L AUTOMOTIVE: Underpays Production Workers, Clark Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DOROTHY CLARK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS GROUP NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01109 (N.D. Ohio, May 21, 2020) challenges Defendant's alleged unlawful employment policies and practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees work for Defendant within the three years as a full time non-exempt production employees who were paid on an hourly basis. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek during the three years of their employment with Defendant. However, Defendant did not pay them overtime for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 including the time spent in pre-shift meetings and/or checking the manning sheet, and associated travel that was approximately ten minutes or more each day. International Automotive Components Group North America, Inc. is a manufacturer and supplier of automobile components and systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Tel: 330-470-4428 Fax: 330-754-1430 Emails: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 614 West Superior Ave., Suite 1148 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: 216-230-2955 Fax: 330-754-1430 Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Kiler Sues in New York Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Interactive Brokers LLC. The case is styled as Marion Kiler, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Interactive Brokers LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02724 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Interactive Brokers LLC is a U.S.-based brokerage firm. Interactive operates the largest electronic trading platform in the U.S. by number of daily average revenue trades.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com INTERARCH INC: Mismanaged Profit Sharing Plan, McCann Says ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, JONATHAN MCCANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. SHIRLEY S. HILL, VERNON W. HILL, II, and INTERARCH, INC., Defendants, and INTERARCH, INC. PROFIT SHARING PLAN AND TRUST, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06435 (D.N.J., May 27, 2020), arises from the Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of participants in and beneficiaries of the InterArch Profit Sharing Plan and Trust, alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to him and Class members by failing to properly manage and invest the Plan's assets. On May 18, 2020, the Plan Administrator distributed the Summary Annual Report for the Plan that revealed for the first time that the value of Plan assets had declined from $17,140,761 as of November 1, 2018 to $3,899,407 as of October 31, 2019, a decline in net assets of $13,241,354 of which $12,537,629 represented a decrease in the value of its investments. The fiduciaries of the Plan provided no explanation about what the Plan had invested in that had caused such dramatic decline. Investigation by the Plaintiff and his counsel has revealed that the overwhelming majority of the Plan's investments is and has been in the stock of Metro Bank, PLC, a London-based bank that is publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange. By deciding to invest such a large amount of stock in a single asset and to continue to maintain such investments, the fiduciaries, particularly Plan Trustee Shirley Hill, breached their duties to invest the Plan's assets in the best interests of the participants and beneficiaries. InterArch, Inc. is an architecture firm with its principal place of business in Moorestown, Burlington County, New Jersey. It is the administrator of the InterArch Profit Sharing Plan and Trust. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Harrison Garner, Esq. Melanie J. Garner, Esq. THE GARNER FIRM, LTD. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 645-5955 E-mail: adam@garnerltd.com melanie@garnerltd.com - and - R. Joseph Barton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 1735 20th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com JD PRODUCE: Fails to Provide Proper Wages to Drivers, Lin Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHUSONG LIN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. JD PRODUCE MASPETH LLC; and JD TRUCKING MASPETH INC; SHENG BO DONG, YI FENG YE, and JESSICA DONG Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02746 (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself as well as other employees similarly situated, against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, arising from Defendants' various willfully and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. According to the complaint, Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Defendants also failed to keep full and accurate records in order to mitigate liability for their wage violations. Defendants never furnished any notice of their use of tip credit. From on or about October 14, 2019 to May 25, 2020, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a driver in New York. JD Produce Maspeth LLC is a wholesaler based in New York, New York. JD Trucking Maspeth Inc. is a New York-based trucking company.[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 E-mail: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.com JIANPU TECH: Bid to Strike Exhibits to Fumerton Declaration Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PANTHER PARTNERS INC., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. JIANPU TECHNOLOGY INC., DAQING (DAVID) YE, YILU (OSCAR) CHEN, JIAYAN LU, CAOFENG LIU, CHENCHAO ZHUANG, JAMES QUN MI, KUI ZHOU, YUANYUAN FAN, RONG360 INC., GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 9848 (PGG) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Plaintiff's motion to strike Exhibits D, F, H, and J to the Fumerton Declaration. Plaintiff Panther Partners commenced the putative class action for violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. In support of their motion, the Defendants have filed a declaration of Robert Fumerton, the counsel for Defendants Jianpu Technology Inc., Rong360 Inc., Law Debenture Corporate Services Inc., and Giselle Manon. The Plaintiff has moved to strike Exhibits D, F, H, and J to the Fumerton Declaration. Judge Gardephe holds that the Fumerton Declaration and its exhibits are plainly not a pleading. Accordingly, the Judge denied the Plaintiff's motion to strike. To the extent that the exhibits cited by the Plaintiff are not incorporated by reference or relied upon in the Amended Complaint or are not subject to judicial notice, the Court will not rely on them in deciding the motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Judgment is available at https://is.gd/eY6NmR from Leagle.com. Panther Partners, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Samuel Howard Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Erin Whitney Boardman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Magdalene Economou, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Todd Leslie Kammerman, Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP. Jianpu Technology Inc., Rong360 Inc., Giselle Manon, inclusive & Law Debenture Corporate Services Inc., Defendants, represented by Scott D. Musoff -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Michael Charles Griffin, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Robert Alexander Fumerton -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Vincent Martin Chiappini -- vinnie.chiappini@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, China Renaissance Securities (Hong Kong) Limited, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC & China Renaissance Securities (US) Inc., Defendants, represented by David B. Hennes, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Erin R. Macgowan, Ropes & Gray LLP, pro hac vice & Martin Jonathan Crisp, Ropes & Gray LLP. JOHN F. KENNEDY HS: Plaintiffs Want School to Turn Over Evidence ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marta Jewson, writing for The Lens, reports that the lawyer for a group of John F. Kennedy High School students suing the school over the 2019 graduation scandal is asking a judge to force the school's governing charter board to turn over evidence, like student records, that are typically barred from disclosure under federal privacy laws. In a motion filed on June 16, attorney Suzette Bagneris said the lawsuit has been stalled for nearly a year because Kennedy's charter board -- the New Beginnings Schools Foundation -- has not responded to any of the plaintiffs' requests for records, citing the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which protects student records. According to Bagneris' June 16 court filing, the issue last came up in court in the fall, and Orleans Parish Civil District Court Judge Robin Giarrusso instructed the plaintiffs and New Beginnings to negotiate a FERPA waiver form to mail to Kennedy students and their families. But since then, two sides have been unable to reach an agreement on a form. "As a result of an inability to resolve this issue, absolutely NO DISCOVERY RESPONSES have been provided to the plaintiffs by NBSF," the filing says. Bagneris is asking Giarrusso to approve the plaintiffs' suggested waiver form and records production procedure. In a separate but related filing on June 16, Bagneris asked Giarrusso to order New Beginnings to preserve all records in its possession, saying that such an order is imperative since the group is poised to hand over control of its two remaining schools. Bagneris argues the charter group has "exclusive control" of evidence and that state law compels them to preserve it. She said they have not produced records, claiming student record privacy protections, according to the filing. The filings come just two weeks before Kennedy's nonprofit charter group, the New Beginnings Schools Foundation, will turn in its charters for Kennedy and its other school, Pierre A. Capdau Charter School. One month after their May 2019 graduation, nearly half of the class learned they hadn't been eligible to graduate. New Beginnings voted to surrender the schools to new operators as the scandal continued to unfold last summer. The non-profit will still exist come July 1, but it will no longer run schools. That is part of attorney Suzette Bagneris' concern. "The change in management and operation of Kennedy places Plaintiffs in a vulnerable position with regard to evidence preservation," Bagneris writes, arguing that the group has known about the lawsuit for nearly a year and should know it must preserve evidence. New Beginnings' student records are key to Bagneris' case. The 2019 graduation scandal -- in which about half the members of the senior class found out they were ineligible to graduate -- resulted in large part from poor and inaccurate record-keeping, as well as potentially altered records. Darnette Daniels, the mother of then 17-year-old Tayler was the lead plaintiff in the original suit, which Bagneris has proposed as a class action. Daniels alleged that her daughter had been wrongly led to believe she could graduate a year early by taking courses online. The courses weren't properly supervised, and didn't count for credit, she told The Lens. That was one of many problems at the school that left nearly half the senior class ineligible to graduate. In a text message on June 17, Daniels said the last year has "been really trying" and the "mental stress for Tayler and I behind all of this, has put a strain on our mother and daughter relationship. We're working on her depression and anger daily." Tayler did not participate in Kennedy's graduation ceremony this month because she participated in the one in 2019 - when she thought she'd actually graduated. Her mother said she's still working toward completing her diploma, which she hopes to finish by the end of the month. The lawsuit's original proposed class included just the class of 2019 students who were directly affected and unable to graduate on time. But Bagneris has since expanded it to include all 2019 seniors and Kennedy students in other classes. But the parties have yet to meet in court for a hearing on approving the suit as a class action. Along with the discovery problem, the case appears to have stalled in part due to partial court closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Bagneris has requested necessary hearings be held via video conference. The Orleans Parish School Board -- originally named as a defendant -- was dismissed from the case last fall, after its lawyer argued that it does not control the student records of its charter schools. New Beginnings tried to be dismissed from the suit as well, but Giarrusso denied the request and a state appeals court affirmed her ruling. The lawsuit also includes the Louisiana Department of Education. New Beginnings did not respond to a request for comment. [GN] KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Venkataraman Securities Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- SRINIVASAN VENKATARAMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., XIAOMING HU, CHENG WANG, BING MEI, LIMING CHEN, JERRY LEWIN, and HENRY YU, Case No. 2:20-cv-05171 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2020), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Kandi securities between June 10, 2015, and March 13, 2017, inclusive alleging that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements of the Company's previously issued financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015, and 2014, and that the first three quarters for the year ended December 31, 2016, required adjustment. The price of the Company's securities significantly declined when the misrepresentations made to the market, causing investors' losses. The Plaintiff purchased Kandi securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' violations. Kandi designs, produces, manufactures, and distributes electric vehicles (EVs) products, EV parts, and off-road vehicles in the People's Republic of China and internationally. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. 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 KINJO INC: Silva Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA and NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL SILVA A.K.A. APOLINAR SILVA, FERNANDO TORNADO PEREZ, and MANUEL CRUZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KINJO INC. (D/B/A GUNBAE), ANDY LAU, SHIRLEY CHEUNG, GARY CHEUNG, KAREN NG, HYUNG RAE CHO, DAKOTA PETITO, SAMMY DOE, RAYMOND DOE, JUN DOE, and ADAM KIM, Case No. 1:20-cv-04402 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020), seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege that they 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 they worked. The Plaintiffs contend that they were ostensibly employed as delivery workers; however, they were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties. The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a Korean BBQ, located at 67 Murray Street, in New York City.[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 KTH PARTS: Conditionally Certifying Collective FLSA Class Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Baughman & Fields, et al., On behalf of themselves and other members of the general public similarly situated v. KTH Parts Industries, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-00008-WHR (S.D. Ohio, Filed May 18, 2020), Justin Baughman and Austin Fields as plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to the the Fair Labor Standards Act for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA class defined as: "all current and former hourly, non-exempt production employees of Defendant who performed at least 40 hours of work in any workweek beginning January 8, 2016 and continuing through the date of judgment"; 2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to the putative class; and 3. requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, positions of employment, last-known mailing addresses, last-known telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for the Defendant at any time from three years preceding the filing of this Motion through the present. The Plaintiffs alleges that KTH Parts failed to fully pay employees overtime wages and seeks all available relief under the FLSA, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. KTH is a Tier-1 Automotive Supplier, for underbody structural parts, providing automotive components to companies worldwide.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614-949-1181 Facsimile: 614-386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com LAPLACE, LA: Watkins Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to Fifth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Denise Watkins filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Denise Watkins v. Michael Tregre, Case No. 2:18-CV-2874, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Michael Tregre is the Sheriff of St. John the Baptist Parish in LaPlace, Louisiana. The appellate case is captioned as Denise Watkins v. Michael Tregre, Case No. 20-30176, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DENISE WATKINS, on her own behalf as well as all others similarly situated, is represented by: Nghana Lewis Gauff, Esq. NGHANA LEWIS GAUFF, LLC 299 Belle Terre Laplace, LA 70068 Telephone: (504) 782-6564 E-mail: nlglawfirm@bellsouth.net - and - Robert Charles Jenkins, Jr., Esq. ROBERT C. JENKINS & ASSOCIATES 631 Saint Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 586-1616 Defendant-Appellee MICHAEL TREGRE, Sheriff and Chief Law Enforcement Officer, is represented by: Thomas Allen Usry, Esq. USRY & WEEKS, A.P.L.C. 1615 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70112-1223 Telephone: (504) 592-4600 LONGFIN CORP: May 15 Scheduling Order Vacated in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE LONGFIN CORP. SECURITIES CLASS ACTION LITIGATION, Case No. 18-cv-02933 (DLC), (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote orders that the May 15 Scheduling Order is vacated. The Court issued the Order upon the Lead Plaintiff seeking clarification regarding whether the Scheduling Order issued by Magistrate Judge Robert Lehrburger on May 15, 2020 was still in effect following the Court's June 16 Order vacating the May 14, 2020 Amended Order of Referral to the Magistrate Judge. The Court further orders that Lead Plaintiff shall not re-file its January 3, 2020 submissions in support of its motion for default judgment, but shall file any supplemental submissions which should address these issues: 1. Whether Lead Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), in addition to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as alluded to in Lead Plaintiff's January 3, 2020 memorandum in support of its motion for default judgment. 2. The discrepancy between the $223,037,680 of Section 10(b) damages requested by Lead Plaintiff and the $27 million of investor harm identified by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Longfin Corp., Suresh Tammineedi, Venkata Meenavalli, and Vivek Ratakonda (the "Defaulting Defendants") are also given until July 24, 2020 to file any opposition to the motion for default judgment. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 18, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya9xdb4h from Leagle.com. LYFT INC: First Cir. Appeal Filed in Cunningham Employment Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Logan Green, Lyft, Inc. and John Zimmer filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Cunningham, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11974-IT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law and the Massachusetts Overtime Law. Lyft is a car service that can be hailed and dispatched through a mobile phone application to transport riders. Melody Cunningham is a Lyft driver, who claims to be misclassified as an independent contractor, thus, denied minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. She was also required to pay business expenses including but not limited to the cost of maintaining their vehicles, gas, insurance, phone and data expenses and other costs. The appellate case is captioned as Cunningham, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-1567, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees MELODY CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; FRUNWI MANCHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MARTIN EL KOUSSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and VLADIMIR LEONIDAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Anastasia Doherty, Esq. Anne R. Kramer, Esq. Shannon Erika Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC 729 Boylston St., Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: adoherty@llrlaw.com akramer@llrlaw.com sliss@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com - and - Karla E. Zarbo, Esq. MA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 1 Ashburton Pl Boston, MA 02108-0000 Telephone: (617) 727-2200 Defendants-Appellants LYFT, INC., LOGAN GREEN, and JOHN ZIMMER are represented by: Benjamin G. Barokh, Esq. Jeffrey Y. Wu, Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 S Grand Ave., 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 E-mail: Benjamin.Barokh@mto.com Jeffrey.Wu@mto.com - and - Adele M. El-Khouri, Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP 1155 F St. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 220-1100 E-mail: Adele.El-Khouri@mto.com - and - Michael T. Maroney, Esq. David J. Santeusanio, Esq. Andrew E. Silvia, Esq. James D. Smeallie, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 10 Saint James Ave., 11th Floor Boston, MA 02116-0000 Telephone: (617) 523-2700 E-mail: michael.maroney@hklaw.com david.santeusanio@HKLAW.com Andrew.Silvia@hklaw.com jd.smeallie@hklaw.com - and - Justin P. Raphael, Esq. Rohit Singla, Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission St., 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4085 E-mail: Justin.Raphael@mto.com rohit.singla@mto.com MAJOR LEAGUE: Manfred Letter Should Be Unsealed, Judge Rules ------------------------------------------------------------ Kristie Ackert, writing for New York Daily News, reports that the New York Yankees were all too happy to talk about the Houston Astros' sign stealing this spring. They were indignant and vocal after Major League Baseball confirmed long-held suspicions that Houston was illegally using electronics to steal signs and relaying them to the hitters in real-time. Having lost to the Astros in the American League Championship Series in 2017 and 2019, the Yankees -- along with the Dodgers -- were considered the victims of what the Astros had done. So, it's more than a little ironic, now, that the Yankees want to keep secret the letter they received from commissioner Rob Manfred detailing their own indiscretions in a sign-stealing investigation sent back in 2017. On June 12, U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff ruled that the letter, used as evidence in a larger class-action suit against MLB, should be unsealed, according to a report on the sports website The Athletic. The Yankees and MLB are arguing it could cause embarrassment to those named in the letter. Rakoff said the letter should not be unsealed until June 12, so the team has enough time to make an emergency appeal. The Yankees are expected to make that appeal. At this point, however, all the Yankees are really risking is embarrassment. MLB looked into several allegations, including that the team used the YES Network cameras to electronically steal signs, and came up with the illegal use of a dugout phone as the only violation. The Yankees were fined for rules violations they claimed happened in 2015-16. While any more revelations could certainly be embarrassing to the Yankees, who were self-righteous in their condemnation of the Astros this spring, the fact is that MLB changed its rules on electronic sign-stealing after the 2017 regular season. That means that any alleged 2015, 2016 or even 2017 sign stealing that is revealed would not be punishable under the current rules, according to the league. But it's certainly intriguing that the Yankees' dirty laundry could be dragged out in a lawsuit charging two of their biggest rivals of cheating. The initial lawsuit, a $5 million class action suit filed on behalf of DraftKings daily fantasy players, was dismissed in April. The complaint alleged that MLB, the Astros and Red Sox were liable for the money DraftKings players lost during games Houston and Boston may have cheated. While an appeal of the lawsuit was also dismissed, the amended complaint argued that Manfred misled the public and falsely represented the findings of the 2017 investigation into the Yankees in the press release. In his ruling, Rakoff wrote that "the investigation had in fact found the Yankees engaged in a more serious sign-stealing scheme." While the Yankees argue that the letter would embarrass those named in it, Rakoff ruled that "much of the letter's contents have already been revealed in the 2017 Press Release." The Astros were found to have used a video feed in their replay room to steal opposing catchers' signs and then use a bat to bang on a trash can to relay what pitch was coming in real-time to hitters in the batter's box. They were fined $5 million, they had their first-round draft picks taken away and GM Jeff Luhnow and manager A.J. Hinch were suspended for a year and then fired by the team. Red Sox manager Alex Cora, who was the bench coach on that 2017 Astros' World Series championship team, was fired by Boston for his role in the Astros' scheme and later suspended for a year when the results of an investigation into the Red Sox were announced. The Astros players were given immunity in the investigation, but Carlos Beltran, a player at the time, was named in the investigation and was forced to step down from his job as Mets manager before his first day at spring training. Boston was found to have run a much smaller sign-stealing scheme centered on their video replay operator, who was suspended for a year. The players were again given immunity in the investigation. [GN] MCDONALD'S: Solidarity Statement Criticized Amid Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Coco Khan, writing for The Guardian, reports that on June 6, the renowned streetwear brand Supreme -- beloved by hypebeasts everywhere -- posted on Instagram: "The Black community has inspired and supported Supreme since day one. We will donate $500,000 between Black Lives Matter, Equal Justice Initiative, Campaign Zero and Black Futures Lab. We stand in solidarity with the fight for justice and equality, and will continue to invest in the community." The statement has been applauded during the weeks of protest sparked by George Floyd's death, receiving more than 260,000 likes on Instagram. Elsewhere, brands find themselves engulfed in controversy as consumers call them out for hypocrisy. Take McDonald's. Its solidarity statement, committing to donate an undisclosed amount to the National Urban League and the NAACP in a stance against systemic oppression, was liked 11,000 times on Twitter. But it wasn't too long before numerous comments came in, reminding McDonald's of the class-action suit being filed against it from black and Latino employees concerned about their safety over Covid-19. Glassnote Music was also called out for its statement of solidarity, after ex-employee Lakiesha Herman claimed that she was fired by the company just two months earlier -- claiming she was the company's only black employee. (Herman's claims said that Glassnote Music initially responded that she had resigned, rather than been terminated. When approached for comment, attorneys for Glassnote Music and Herman advised that the parties had mutually agreed to a resolution of the matter, including an exit package.) Glassnote apologized for the "unnecessary stress caused" and that the company "has always been and will continue to be committed to accountability." And activists such as Sharon Chuter have gone even further, asking companies to publish information related to hiring and pay. For brands, there's a lot at stake. Consumers want to spend their money with companies with progressive values: 87% of Americans would purchase a product from a company that advocated for an issue they cared about, while 88% would boycott a company they thought behaved irresponsibly. Some might think Supreme could teach these brands a thing or two, having gone over and beyond and -- as we say on Twitter -- "opened their purse". Alas, if only it were that simple. Just five days before Supreme's show of support, a photo was widely circulated showing a cartridge the LAPD had used to fire rubber bullets at Black Lives Matter protesters. The picture clearly displays the name of the manufacturer -- Combined Tactical Systems – a brand name of Pennsylvanian company, Combined Systems Inc, which, in addition to supplying US police departments, also supplies teargas to the governments of Israel and Egypt. Evidence suggests such supplies were used on unarmed Palestinian protesters and Egyptian students protesting against police brutality and government corruption in 2011. It turns out Supreme and Combined Systems Inc have something in common: their investors, Carlyle Group, a somewhat shadowy multinational private investment firm which bought a 50% stake in Supreme for an eye-watering $500m in 2017 and previously invested in Combined Systems Inc through their mezzanine fund (which they have now sold). What do these weirdly granular details that sound like they're from an episode of Billions tell us? It's that exposing businesses' hypocrisy and holding them to account through ethical consumerism may not deliver as much as we'd hoped. Some levels of hypocrisy aren't clear, or are actively shrouded. Data can't always give you a full view on workplace culture; supply chains can go dark (a US manufacturer receives tin from a supplier, who gets it from a supplier, that somewhere leads back to Mexico but no one can be sure what the practices are in the tin mine). Then there's the myriad of business arrangements -- from offshore companies to private funds -- that make following the money impossible, let alone figuring out how the profits are spent, whether adequate taxes are being paid, and who the money came from in the first place (and whether it was Jeffrey Epstein -- joking!). The truth is market capitalism makes it near impossible to make wholly ethical choices. Wealth exists because of somebody's oppression somewhere, whether it's historic, or out of sight in a sweatshop overseas. Is Supreme hypocritical for taking money from a fund that has been plumped up by the sales of rubber bullets and teargas? Or are they putting bad money to good? Ultimately it's up to the consumer to decide, and figure out how much "bad" they are willing to accept, before they queue up for the next Supreme drop, of course. This piece was updated on June 14, 2020, to clarify Glassnote Music's position on the matter. [GN] MDL 2954: Transfer of 8 PPP Loan Actions to S.D. Texas Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In MDL 2954, IN RE: WELLS FARGO PAYCHECK PROTECTION PLAN LITIGATION, Plaintiff DNM Contracting, Inc., moves the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, for an order transferring eight actions, as well as any tag-along actions or other cases that may be filed asserting related or similar claims, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for centralization of the actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Plaintiffs in each of the Related Actions contend that the Defendants violated state laws and their fiduciary duties when they failed to implement and follow the Small Business Administration's rules and regulations requiring, among other things, that applications be processed on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Specifically, all actions allege that the Defendants intentionally or negligently engaged in wrongful conduct in approving (or denying) applications for loans available through the federal Paycheck Protection Program, including favoring or prioritizing applications in processing time or order. The 8 Actions are: -- BSJA, Inc., et al. v. Wells Fargo and Co., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03588 (C.D. Cal.); -- Ma v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-03697 (N.D. Cal.); -- Marselian v. Wells Fargo and Company, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03166 (N.D. Cal.); -- Karen's Custom Grooming LLC v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00956 (S.D. Cal.); -- Physical Therapy Specialists, P.C. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-01190 (D. Colo.); -- FULL COMPLIANCE, LLC, et al. v. AMERANT BANK, N.A., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-22339 (S.D. Fla.); -- Scherer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 4:20-cv-01295 (S.D. Tex.); and -- DNM Contracting, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 4:20-cv-01790 (S.D. Tex.). The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq. Kevin T. Kennedy, Esq. Eddie Hodges Jr., Esq. KENNARD LAW PC 2603 Augusta Drive, Suite 1450 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: 713 742 0900 Facsimile: 713 742 0951 E-mail: Alfonso.Kennard@KennardLaw.com kevin.kennedy@kennardlaw.com Eddie.hodges@kennardlaw.com MEDICAL STAFFING: Discovery Schedule in Junkerseld Lawsuit Revised ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California reset the deadlines for completing class discovery and filing class certification motion(s) in the case, TERESA JUNKERSFELD, an individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00236-EPG (E.D. Cal.). The parties have filed a stipulation requesting that the Court reset the deadlines for completing class discovery and for the Plaintiff to file class certification motion(s). They explain that the anticipated settlement agreement has failed, and that although they are continuing negotiations, in light of their inability to finalize the settlement, they request the deadlines be reset. Magistrate Judge Grosjean found good cause for and therefore granted the request. The deadline to complete non-expert discovery related to class certification, including motions to compel related to such discovery, is reset to July 14, 2020. The deadline for filing class certification motion(s) is reset to Sept. 14, 2020. The hearing for preliminary approval of class action settlement set for April 3, 2020 is vacated. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/4o58Mx from Leagle.com. Teresa Junkersfeld, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Bryan Hayes -- mhayes@helpcounsel.com -- Hayes Pawlenko LLP & Kye Douglas Pawlenko -- kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com -- Hayes, Pawlenko, LLP. Medical Staffing Solutions Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew A. Scholl -- mscholl@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum -- skroll-rosenbaum@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, Kenneth Dawson Sulzer -- ksulzer@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP & Sayaka Karitani -- skaritani@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, LLP. MEDICAL SUPPLY: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Medical Supply Guy Inc. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. The Medical Supply Guy Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04781 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Medical Supply Guy Inc. is a primary medical supply and equipment distributor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com MERLIN ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Bautista Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merlin Entertainments Group U.S. Holdings Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jessica Bautista, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Merlin Entertainments Group U.S. Holdings Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Legoland California, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:20-cv-01128-GPC-LL (S.D. Cal., June 19, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional-State Statute. Merlin Entertainments is a location-based, family entertainment. Merlin is one of the world's largest attraction operators.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Midland Funding Appeals Decision in Moses Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Non-party Midland Funding LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Tiffany Moses v. Midland Credit Management, Case No. 2-19-cv-03115, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc., was founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short periods. The appellate case is captioned as Tiffany Moses v. Midland Credit Management, Case No. 20-1566, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee TIFFANY MOSES, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, is represented by: Nicholas J. Linker, Esq. ZEMEL LAW 1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com Defendant-Appellee MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. is represented by: Lauren M. Burnette, Esq. MESSER STRICKLER 12276 San Jose Boulevard, Suite 720 Jacksonville, FL 32223 Telephone: (904) 527-1172 E-mail: lburnette@messerstrickler.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Midland Funding Can't Intervene in Feist FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LINDSEY FEIST, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC, Civil Action No. 19-3266 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Midland Funding, LLC's motion to intervene. Feist filed a class action complaint against Defendant Midland Credit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). She alleges Midland Credit, as a debt collector, used language in a purported discount program that was false, deceptive, and misleading in violation of the FDCPA. On April 4, 2017, Feist opened a Best Buy credit card account. The account was owned by Citibank, N.A. To open the account, Feist entered into an agreement with Citibank, including a clause allowing either party to elect to arbitrate any claims arising out of the account. Although the agreement permitted a party to reject the arbitration clause, neither party did so when entering the agreement. After Feist accrued an outstanding balance on the account, Citibank sold the account to Midland Funding. Midland Funding gained all rights, title and interest previously held by Citibank. Midland Funding then used Midland Credit, a wholly separate entity, as a vendor to collect on the outstanding balance of Feist's account. Midland Credit, unlike Midland Funding, neither owns the account nor has an agreement with Feist regarding the account. On July 26, 2018, Midland Credit sent Feist a letter offering a "discount program" to pay off her outstanding balance with Midland Funding. Midland Credit offered her three options for the discount program: (1) 40% off, (2) 20% off, or (3) monthly payments as low as $50. Although Midland Credit communicates with consumers to collect debts for Midland Funding, Midland Funding has no input in how Midland Credit attempts to collect debts. Midland Funding also has no ability to control the language Midland Credit uses in offering discount programs to consumers. On July 25, 2019, Feist filed the instant class action Complaint against Midland Credit. Feist alleges Midland Credit violated the FDCPA by using ambiguous language in its purported discount program. Feist alleges the third option (monthly payments as low as $50) is ambiguous as to whether it is a discount settlement option or a path to full payment. She further alleges the reasonable consumer would believe the third option is still part of the overarching discount program and would affect the consumer's choice to pay the debt. Feist thus alleges this statement is a false, deceptive, and misleading representation which violates 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10). After Midland Credit answered the Complaint, Midland Funding moved to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). Midland Funding argues it has a right to intervene because Feist's claims threaten to limit the manners in which it may communicate with consumers, the use of vendors to facilitate collection of delinquent accounts through discounted terms, and the right to resolve delinquent accounts and enforce the terms of the account agreement. Feist opposes the motion, although Midland Credit does not. Judge Sanchez will deny Midland Funding's motion to intervene because it does not have a sufficient interest in the litigation and any interest it has will be unimpaired and adequately represented by Midland Credit. First, Midland Funding has not established it has a sufficient interest in the litigation. Midland Funding's interests or rights are not implicated by the relief Feist seeks in the case. The interests relating to the agreement between Feist and Midland Funding, are unrelated to the litigation about Midland Credit's debt collection practices under the FDCPA. Its other proposed, but insufficient, interest is in compelling arbitration of Feist's claims because they "arise out of" the account. Even if Midland Funding has a contractual interest in compelling arbitration, that interest is not affected by the case. Second, because the Judge concludes Midland Funding's interests are insufficient, they cannot be impaired by disposition of the case. Midland Funding conceded at oral argument that even if Midland Credit is liable under the FDCPA, there is nothing that prevents Midland Funding from collecting on its delinquent accounts. It follows that the disposition of Midland Credit's liability has no effect, practical or otherwise, on Midland Funding's ability to retrieve the outstanding balance on Feist's account. Finally, Midland Funding has not shown its interests are inadequately represented in the case. Although the Judge already determined Midland Funding has no interest in the outcome of the litigation, any interest it does have is adequately represented by Midland Credit. Regarding the case, Midland Credit wants the Court to find its practices comply with the FDCPA. Midland Funding, as a debt owner who uses Midland Credit to collect on its debts, wants the same outcome. The Judge sees no reason why Midland Credit, as the actual alleged violator of the FDCPA, would not adequately represent Midland Funding's interests in this regard. In sum, Midland Funding has not articulated a sufficient interest in the litigation warranting its intervention as of right. Even if it does have an interest, that interest is unimpaired and is adequately represented by Midland Credit. Accordingly, Judge Sanchez denied Midland Funding's motion to intervene. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/Uk8ai5 from Leagle.com. LINDSEY FEIST, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CONSUMERS, Plaintiff, represented by NICHOLAS J. LINKER -- nl@zemellawllc.com -- ZEMEL LAW LLC. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, represented by LAUREN M. BURNETTE -- lburnette@messerstrickler.com -- MESSER STRICKLER LTD. MORGAN STANLEY: Still Defends Iowa Public Employees' Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("MS&Co.") remains a defendant in the class action suit styled, Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al., according to Ceres Abingdon L.P.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. In August of 2017, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a purported antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that MS&Co., together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and New York state law in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based platforms for securities lending. The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions with the defendants. The class action complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC operates as an investment management company. The Company offers wealth management, asset allocation, capital markets, investment banking, research, trading, recapitalizations, equities valuations, trust and estate planning, strategies, and financial advisory services. Morgan Stanley & Co. serves customers worldwide. NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision Affirmed -------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Court of Appeal for the State of California has affirmed the judgment on the pleadings in favor of Natera, in the class action suit related to the company's July 1, 2015 initial public offering (the "IPO"). On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, against Natera, its directors, certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their affiliates, and each of the underwriters of the Company's July 1, 2015 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The complaints asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints alleged, among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company's IPO contained materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about the Company’s business and prospects. Among other relief, the complaints sought class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs. On October 23, 2017, the San Mateo Superior Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, without leave to re-file, and granted the Company's motion to dismiss the claims under Section 11 of the Act with leave to re-file. Plaintiffs refiled an amended complaint on November 22, 2017. On August 7, 2018 the judge granted a motion by the Company for judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs appealed the judgment on or about March 29, 2019, and the appeal was heard on February 18, 2020. On February 28, 2020, the Court of Appeal for the State of California affirmed the judgment on the pleadings in favor of Natera. Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc. in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California. NED LAMONT: Certification of Registered Voters Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ANDY GOTTLIEB, et al. v. NED LAMONT, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00623-JCH (Filed ), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class consisting of: "all Connecticut registered voters"; 2. appointing them as class representatives; and 3. appointing their counsel as class counsel. At issue in the complaint is the plaintiffs' ballot access in the upcoming August 11, 2020 state party primary.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander T. Taubes, Esq. 470 James Street, Suite 007 New Haven, CT 06513 Telephone: (203) 909-0048 E-mail: alextt@gmail.com NELNET INC: Five Student Loan Borrowers File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Five student loan borrowers from Illinois, Missouri, Texas, Colorado, and Michigan have filed a comprehensive Class Action Lawsuit against Nelnet, Inc. and two of its subsidiaries. The Class Action, Case No. 4:20-CV-03069, was on June 15, 2020 in Federal District Court in Nebraska. According to the complaint, all five student loan borrowers claim they suffered damages after interest on their Income-Driven Repayment Plans ("IDR plans") was capitalized, the total loan volume increased, and benefits of their IDR plan were diminished when their applications or renewals were delayed. Per court documents, all five Plaintiffs allege that after enrolling in one-year IDR plans serviced by Nelnet and its subsidiaries, they submitted the necessary documents to certify or recertify their income level and family size, sometimes multiple times. Despite complying with documentation requirements, the lawsuit claims, they were met repeatedly with excuses, delays, and a lack of processing attention. While two of the five borrowers qualified for forgiveness programs based on their employment, they say they're now required to work months or years longer in order to meet qualification standards because of Nelnet delays. The Plaintiffs contend that Nelnet's conduct at the core of their complaints constitutes a pattern of improper activity. Domina Law Group joined forces with Chicago lawyers Dan Edelman, Cassandra Miller, and Anthony Fiorentino to file the case. Potential Class Members Encouraged to Contact Firm The lawsuit against Nelnet identifies proposed Classes: a Breach of Contract class, a separate Negligent Misrepresentation class, and classes for the individual states where the Plaintiffs reside. All classes include persons with federal student loans serviced by Nelnet who, at any period within the previous four years prior to the lawsuit filing or after: -- Were enrolled in an IDR plan; -- Timely submitted an application to renew the plan; -- Had their application eventually approved; and -- Had their IDR temporarily discontinued by Nelnet while the application was pending. Given the scope of America's student loan debt, and the fact that Nelnet serviced at least $162.5 billion for six million student loan borrowers in 2016 alone, the Class Action may potentially include hundreds of thousands of student loan borrowers across the country. Federal student loan borrowers who have interest in becoming a Class Member are encouraged to contact Domina Law Group. A questionnaire for qualification will be provided. Domina Law Group -- http://www.dominalaw.com-- is a nationally recognized Civil Trial Practice that's helmed landmark litigation on behalf of the injured and the wronged, often against powerful corporations that value profits more than people. [GN] NEVADA PROPERTY 1: Unlawfully Withholds Tips, Merced et al Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DEON MERCED, an individual, SERTHA EVANS, an individual, and each of them on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEVADA PROPERTY 1, LLC d/b/a THE COSMOPOLITAN LAS VEGAS, DOES I through V, inclusive, and ROE CORPORATIONS I through V, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00920 (D. Nev., May 21, 2020) challenges Defendants' alleged unlawful tip pooling policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs started working with Defendants as Slot Guest Service Representatives on or about November 2010. Plaintiff Merced's employment with Defendants was terminated in February 2020, while Plaintiff Evans' ended in September 2019. Plaintiffs allege that the tip pool for the slot department included Slot Supervisors from the time Plaintiffs started working at Defendants. Although the title "Slot Supervisors" was changed to Assistant Managers", the roles and responsibilities related to the position remained substantively unchanged and still explicitly prohibited to share in the tip pooling pursuant to the FLSA amendment in March 2018. The complaint asserts that the inclusion of Assistant Managers in the tip pool is tantamount to Defendant's withholding of tips to be received by its employees. Nevada Property 1, LLC d/b/a The Cosmopolitan Las Vegas operates hotels. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph A. Gutierrez, Esq. Joseph N. Mott, Esq. Danielle J. Barraza, Esq. MAIER GUTIERREZ & ASSOCIATES 8816 Spanish Ridge Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89148 Tel: (702) 629-7900 Fax: (702) 629-7925 Emails: jag@mgalaw.com jnm@mgalaw.com djb@mgalaw.com NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Lopez et al. Seek OT Pay for Bank Personnel --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE LOPEZ and JOSEPH GIUFFRE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC., NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANK, and NEW YORK COMMERCIAL BANK, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02741 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020) alleges that Defendants willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by failing to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees for all of their overtime hours worked based upon its unlawful policies and practices. According to the complaint, while Defendants required Plaintiffs and the similarly situated employees to work overtime hours, they required Plaintiffs to work off the clock. Accordingly, Defendants failed to credit -- and therefore compensate -- Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees for all of their hours worked. Plaintiff Lopez worked for Defendants as Assistant Branch Manager at one of Defendants' branch locations in Queens, New York from approximately March 2012 to November 2018. Plaintiff Guiffre also worked for Defendants as Assistant Branch Manager in Woodbury, New York from approximately August 2015 to May 2017. New York Community Bancorp, Inc., which is headquartered in Westbury, New York, operates retail bank branches in Florida, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Logan Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com lpardell@shavitzlaw.com NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Velazquez Filed in Gulino Bias Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from District Court's Judgment dated February 13, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and classwide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board, Case No. 20-927, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Jose Velazquez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 Email: joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NORMAN BARWIN: 16th Biological Child Joins Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Antoine Trepanier, writing for CBC News, reports that growing up, Marie-Pier never really dwelled on her identity. The youngest of three girls never looked much like her father or two sisters, but the difference wasn't so great that the Gatineau, Que., native ever thought to question where she'd come from, or how she'd been conceived. That all changed last fall when Marie-Pier's mother Louise saw a news report that stunned her. In it, a young woman whose identity was concealed except for her dark hair said she was fertility doctor Norman Barwin's biological daughter. "It got me thinking," Louise said in a French-language interview with Radio-Canada. CBC has agreed not to use the family's surname to protect their privacy. Louise and her husband, who had had a vasectomy, longed for a third child. Fearing their youngest would be perceived as different from their other two children, they told no one when they decided to turn to a sperm bank, with help from Barwin. It was a secret Louise kept until January, when she finally decided to tell Marie-Pier she had been conceived through artificial insemination. "At the time, I said it didn't change anything," Marie-Pier told Radio-Canada. "Then it sunk in that my father is not my biological father, and it was a shock to learn that." Louise grew convinced that Barwin was Marie-Pier's biological father. "It was something I felt. You can't explain it," she said. A few weeks later, they got confirmation of Marie-Pier's paternity through a test organized by the law firm heading up the class-action lawsuit. Marie-Pier is now Barwin's 16th biological child to join the class action against the man who's become known as the "Baby God" of artificial insemination. Last year, Barwin was found to have committed professional misconduct by using his own sperm to inseminate several patients, and using the wrong sperm with many others. Barwin pleaded no contest to the allegations through his lawyer. His medical licence was revoked and he was ordered to pay a fine. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the class action say there are now 91 children who were conceived using the wrong sperm, including Barwin's. Some of those newly discovered "Barwin babies" are from the Gatineau area. 'There's got to be others' The woman Louise had seen being interviewed on television is Tracy-Lee Prescott, who has now agreed to reveal her identity for the first time. Prescott, 38, said she felt compelled to do that first anonymous media interview last year to let Quebecers know who Barwin is. While the stories of Barwin's babies have received enormous media attention in the rest of Canada, Prescott maintains that in Quebec the story is less well-known, and fears there may be others like her who don't know who their biological father is. "We're everywhere. I was the only one in Gatineau, but I told myself there's got to be others. Of course it is not right what he did. People like me have the right to know," she said. Prescott said she always knew she was conceived with the help of a sperm donor. When allegations against her mother's fertility doctor started to multiply, she also had a DNA test organized through the law firm representing the growing class action, and became one of the first Quebecers to join. The woman who launched the suit in 2016 is Rebecca Dixon. Dixon discovered through DNA testing four years ago that Barwin is her father, and said she doesn't know how many more half-siblings she may have. "I expect that maybe in 20 years someone will take a DNA test on Ancestry or 23andMe and we will find others," Dixon said. Dixon has been the subject of numerous English-language media reports, but she, too, believes the message hasn't reached Quebec. "There haven't been as many stories in the Quebec media or in French, so I think there are people who haven't heard about this yet," she told Radio-Canada in an interview. Quebecers sent to Barwin for insemination Before 2018, there were no fertility clinics in the Outaouais region. Western Quebec couples often went to Ottawa, and Barwin, for artificial insemination. Still, the CISSS de l'Outaouais, the region's public health authority, told Radio-Canada there is no reference to Barwin in its archives, and the president of the Association of General Practitioners of Western Quebec, Dr. Marcel Guilbault, wrote in an email that he does not know of any Outaouais doctors who used Barwin's services. However one doctor, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed he referred patients to Barwin in the 1980s. He said at the time, very few doctors practised this type of fertility treatment, and patients generally wanted to stay in the region rather than travel to Montreal for insemination. Instead, they were often referred to Barwin. 16 known biological children According to the lawsuit, there are now 16 known Barwin babies. Dixon said nine live in Ontario, three in British Columbia and four in Quebec. Two of them, both Quebecers, have only come forward to join the lawsuit since January. "I didn't expect to find two more people in the same month, four years after I started this whole experience. That tells me that we may find others in Quebec," Dixon said. A third Quebec-based plaintiff who did not want to be interviewed told Radio-Canada they believe there are likely other parents of Barwin babies in Gatineau. The class action has not yet been certified, and the allegations against Barwin have not been proven in court. Barwin's lawyer declined Radio-Canada's request for an interview, or to answer questions sent by email. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Peter Cronyn of the firm Nelligan O'Brien Payne, said he hopes to reach a negotiated settlement. "The class action is to allow for compensation, but we also want to create a vehicle to allow people to come forward and get the answers that they are looking for," Cronyn said. Meanwhile, Marie-Pier is adjusting to her new reality. "It's important to know your identity -- your genes -- to really know where you come from. I'm glad my parents told me, because it's part of me," she said. [GN] NORTHERN TRUST: Court Dismisses Banks Class Suit With Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Lindie L. Banks and Erica LeBlanc, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Northern Trust Corporation and Northern Trust Company, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-09141 (C.D. Cal.), Judge John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Banks and LeBlanc brought the present action against Defendants Northern Trust Corp. and The Northern Trust Co., asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, accounting, violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and violations of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 et seq. Northern filed its motion for summary judgment as to each of the Plaintiffs' causes of action, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition, Northern filed its reply, and the Court found the matter appropriate for submission on the papers without oral argument. The matter was, therefore, removed from the Court's Feb. 24, 2020 hearing calendar and the parties were given advance notice. On review, Judge Walter finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to any of the claims for relief set forth in the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint. Therefore, Northern Trust is entitled to summary judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiffs as to all claims for relief in their First Amended Class Action Complaint, in its entirety, as a matter of law. Accordingly, Judge Walter granted Northern Trust's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Judgment is available at https://is.gd/rtKG0Y from Leagle.com. Lindie L. Banks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Erica LeBlanc, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian J. Malloy -- bjm@brandilaw.com -- Brandi Law Firm, Derek G. Howard -- derek@derekhowardlaw.com -- Howard Law Firm & Thomas John Brandi -- tjb@brandilaw.com -- The Brandi Law Firm. Northern Trust Corporation & Northern Trust Company, Defendants, represented by David R. Singer , Jenner and Block LLP, Amanda S. Amert -- aamert@jenner.com -- Jenner and Block LLP, pro hac vice, Ashley M. Schumacher , Jenner and Block LLP, pro hac vice, Brienne M. Letourneau -- bletourneau@jenner.com -- Jenner and Block LLP, pro hac vice, Craig C. Martin -- cmartin@jenner.com -- Jenner and Block LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel J. Weiss -- dweiss@jenner.com -- Jenner and Block LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew R. Devine, Jenner and Block LLP, pro hac vice. OKLAHOMA GAS: Williams Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kela Williams, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO., Case No. 5:20-cv-00600-SLP (W.D. Okla., June 23, 2020), is brought to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Oklahoma Minimum Wage Act, and the Oklahoma Wage Payment Requirements Act. The Defendant enforced a uniform company-wide policy wherein it improperly required its hourly call-center employees--the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members--to perform work "off-the-clock" and without pay, according to the complaint. The Defendant's illegal company-wide policy has caused the Plaintiff to have hours worked that were not compensated and further created a miscalculation of their regular rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime compensation each workweek. Although the Plaintiff have routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff have not been paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Plaintiff Williams was employed by OG&E in customer service in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, from June 2006 until October 2018. OG&E is Oklahoma's oldest and largest investor-owned electric company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noble K. McIntyre, Esq. MCINTYRE LAW, P.C. 8601 S. Western Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73139 Phone: (405) 917-5250 Facsimile: (405) 917-5405 Email: noble@mcintyrelaw.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: cliff@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com OSMOSE UTILITIES: Deadline for Papers in Fisher Moved to July 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned TODD FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01704-NONE-EPG. (E.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California extended the deadline for filing approval papers for Class Action settlement to July 20, 2020. The status conference, previously set for June 22, 2020, is continued to August 4, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. To participate telephonically, each party is directed to use the following dial-in number and passcode: 1-888-251-2909; passcode 1024453. A full-text copy of the District Court's June 18, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yawgrjl3 from Leagle.com OTA FRANCHISE: Online Investment Training Fraudulent, Avila Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO AVILA and LARRY GELLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OTA FRANCHISE CORPORATION; NEWPORT EXCHANGE HOLDINGS, INC.; NEH SERVICES, INC.; EYAL SHAHAR; and SAMUEL R. SEIDEN, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00960 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, concealment, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, untrue and misleading advertising in violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17500, and violation of California Welfare & Institutions Code Sec. 15610. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated individuals, allege that the Defendants are engaged in a fraudulent investment education scheme wherein they claim to offer a low investment online training academy (OTA) strategy with a high profit in return. The Defendants advertised to consumers, particularly elderly individuals, that they can earn substantial income through OTA training with its infallible strategies, successful instructors, and simple steps and tools regardless of consumers' background, amount of financial investment, and amount of time investment. However, in reality, the Defendants do not have reasonable basis to support their representations and they do not track the trading performance of their students. Majority of students who receive OTA training do not make the advertised income. Indeed, many students, including elderly individuals, lose their own money and have reduced capacity to replace their lost savings. OTA Franchise Corporation, doing business as OTA, is an operator of online trading academy centers with its principal place of business at 17780 Fitch Avenue, Irvine, California. Newport Exchange Holdings, Inc., also doing business as OTA, is an operator of online trading academy center with its principal place of business at 17780 Fitch Avenue, Irvine, California. NEH Services, Inc., also doing business as OTA, is an Irvine, California-based corporation used by OTA Franchise Corp. to funds loans made by OTA franchisees to consumers seeking to purchase OTA training. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wylie A. Aitken, Esq. Darren O. Aitken, Esq. Ashleigh E. Aitken, Esq. AITKEN AITKEN COHN, LLP 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 800 Santa Ana, CA 92707-2555 Telephone: (714) 434-1424 Facsimile: (714) 434-3600 E-mail: wylie@aitkenlaw.com darren@aitkenlaw.com PALMER CITY, TX: Charpentier Seeks OT Pay for Police Officers ------------------------------------------------------------- JARED CHARPENTIER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF PALMER, TEXAS, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01327-S (N.D. Tex., May 21, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid police officer in the Palmer Police Department from approximately May 2017 to August 2018. According to the complaint, despite knowing that Plaintiff typically worked no less than 40 hours per 7-day workweek, Defendant did not properly pay Plaintiff at time and one-half his regular rate of pay for each and every hour worked over 40 in a seven-day workweek as required by the FLSA. City of Palmer is an incorporated city and political subdivision located in Ellis County, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 251-4157 Fax: (214) 261-5159 Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com PANDORA MARKETING: Jenkins Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pandora Marketing, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michelle Jenkins, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Pandora Marketing, LLC, formerly known as: Timeshare Compliance, LLC, doing business as: Timeshare Compliance, Timeshare Compliance, LLC, John Doe Corporation, Case No. 0:20-cv-02337-MGL (D.S.C., June 22, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Pandora Marketing is a full-service advocacy group that specializes in legally exiting timeshare contracts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Andrew Maxfield, Esq. DAVID MAXFIELD ATTORNEY LLC PO Box 11865 Columbia, SC 29211 Phone: (803) 509-6800 Fax: (855) 299-1656 Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com PIZZA CZAR: Bid to File Ewing Settlement Docs Under Seal Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES EWING, Plaintiff, v. PIZZA CZAR INC., SHANE HOLLOWAY, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00232-LPR (E.D. Ark.), Judge Lee P. Rudofsky of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Northern Division, denied the Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Settlement Documents Under Seal. The Defendants request to file under seal the Settlement and Release Agreement, Supplemental Settlement Agreement, and Class Notice and Claim Form. There is a common-law right of access to judicial records. Public access to judicial records serves the ends of bolstering public confidence in the judicial system and provides a measure of accountability to the public at large. The Court must balance the damage done to the interests served by the common-law right of access by sealing a judicial record against the salutary interests served by maintaining confidentially of the information sought to be sealed. While in many cases, a settlement might not be considered a "judicial document," an agreement settling an FLSA collective (or a Rule 23 class action) is different. Such settlement agreements, which a court generally must review and approve, are judicial documents both relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the overall judicial process. They are thus subject to a presumption of public access, as the Defendants acknowledge. Judge Rudofsky holds that the parties have not offered persuasive evidence of why their interest in confidentiality outweighs the public's right to access judicial records. They argue that the settlement documents contain information related to specific employment relationships and not matters of public concern. It is vague and unconvincing. The parties argue that the settlement awards "are based on the Defendants' confidential business practices, including strategic decisions about how locations are staffed and how deliveries are compensated." The Judge is not convinced that the allegedly insufficient reimbursement of delivery drivers implicates a strategic business decision that should be sealed from public access. Contrary to the assertions made in the Defendants' Motion, an in camera review of the settlement documents revealed very little, if anything, about the Defendants' business practices that was not already stated in their Complaint on the public docket. On the other hand, sealing the settlement documents runs the risk of thwarting employees' awareness of their FLSA rights, which serves to ensure pervasive implementation of the FLSA in the workplace. Finally, the Judge notes that in the proposed Settlement Agreement, the parties specifically contemplated that the Court might not agree to keep the settlement-related documents confidential. Indeed, the parties agreed that if the Court required public filing of the proposed Settlement Agreement, that requirement would not affect the validity of the proposed Settlement Agreement. Given this statement, it is not credible for anyone to suggest that confidentiality was a key and material term of the Settlement Agreement such that an agreement would have been prevented in absence of that term. Accordingly, Judge Rudofsky denied the Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Settlement Documents Under Seal. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/CsFyWN from Leagle.com. James Ewing, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Sanford -- josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm & Stephen Rauls -- steve@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm. Pizza Czar Inc & Shane Holloway, Defendants, represented by Matthew R. Korn -- mkorn@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP, pro hac vice & Jeff Weintraub -- jweintraub@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP. PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on June 17 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of holders of Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Portola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ GS: PTLA) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of Portola by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Alexion") and Odyssey Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub") announced on May 5, 2020 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Portola, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), Alexion, and Merger Sub, is captioned Post v. Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00715 (D. Del.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at https://www.rigrodskylong.com/cases-portola-pharmaceuticals-inc,join. On May 5, 2020, Portola entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Alexion and Merger Sub. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to purchase all of Portola's outstanding common stock for $18.00 in cash per share (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Solicitation Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to, among other things, the Company's financial projections and the analyses performed by Portola's financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Portola common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware and New York, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in securities fraud and corporate class actions nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Seth D. Rigrodsky Gina M. Serra (888) 969-4242 (Toll Free) (302) 295-5310 Fax: (302) 654-7530 info@rl-legal.com https://rl-legal.com [GN] PRO TEETH WHITENING: Faces Roussel ADA Suit in Rhode Island ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pro Teeth Whitening Co. Ltd. The case is styled as Chelsea Roussel, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Pro Teeth Whitening Co. Ltd., Case No. 1:20-cv-00277-JJM-PAS (D.R.I., June 22, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pro Teeth Whitening aims to provide high quality, safe and effective teeth whitening products at affordable prices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E Hultquist, Esq. HULTQUIST LAW, P.C. 56 Pine Street, Suite 200 Providence, RI 02882 Phone: (401) 383-6650 Fax: (401) 274-2780 Email: hultquistlaw@gmail.com PROASSURANCE CORP: Frank R. Cruz Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ProAssurance Corporation ("ProAssurance" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRA) common stock between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). ProAssurance investors have until August 17, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On January 22, 2020, after the market closed, ProAssurance disclosed a $37 million charge to its loss reserves for fourth quarter 2019 due to "deteriorating loss experience, driven by a large national healthcare account." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.18, or 11%, to close at $33.40 per share on January 23, 2020, thereby injuring investors. On February 20, 2020, the Company announced its 2019 fourth quarter and full year results which revealed that the adverse development from this one large national healthcare account was actually $51.5 million, much higher than the initial estimate a month prior, of $37 million. Then, on May 8, 2020, ProAssurance revealed that the large healthcare client would most likely not be renewing its policy and alternately exercise an option for tail coverage that would result in an additional $50 million in losses in the second quarter of 2020. This loss, when combined with the $51.5 million adverse development, meant that the Company would suffer over $100 million in losses from a single account. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.38 per share, or over 22%, to close at $15.95 per share on May 8, 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 ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process and risk management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves in its Specialty P&C segment; (2) that ProAssurance failed to properly assess a large national healthcare account that experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made when the account was underwritten; and (3) that as a result, ProAssurance was subject to a materially heightened risk of financial loss and reserve charges. If you purchased ProAssurance securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 17, 2020 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 purchased ProAssurance 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 Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.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 The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] PROASSURANCE CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights law firm, on June 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased ProAssurance Corporation ("ProAssurance" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRA) common stock between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). ProAssurance investors have until August 17, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your ProAssurance 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/proassurance-corporation/. 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 January 22, 2020, after the market closed, ProAssurance disclosed a $37 million charge to its loss reserves for fourth quarter 2019 due to "deteriorating loss experience, driven by a large national healthcare account." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.18, or 11%, to close at $33.40 per share on January 23, 2020, thereby injuring investors. On February 20, 2020, the Company announced its 2019 fourth quarter and full year results which revealed that the adverse development from this one large national healthcare account was actually $51.5 million, much higher than the initial estimate a month prior, of $37 million. Then, on May 8, 2020, ProAssurance revealed that the large healthcare client would most likely not be renewing its policy and alternately exercise an option for tail coverage that would result in an additional $50 million in losses in the second quarter of 2020. This loss, when combined with the $51.5 million adverse development, meant that the Company would suffer over $100 million in losses from a single account. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.38 per share, or over 22%, to close at $15.95 per share on May 8, 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 ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process and risk management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves in its Specialty P&C segment; (2) that ProAssurance failed to properly assess a large national healthcare account that experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made when the account was underwritten; and (3) that as a result, ProAssurance was subject to a materially heightened risk of financial loss and reserve charges. If you purchased ProAssurance common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 17, 2020 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 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 Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] PROASSURANCE CORP: Portnoy Law Files Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of ProAssurance Corporation ("ProAssurance" or the "Company") investors that acquired ProAssurance securities (NYSE: PRA) between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). ProAssurance provides medical liability insurance to providers in the United States. ProAssurance's most important division is its Specialty Property and Casualty segment ("Specialty P&C"), which has consistently accounted for at least 60% of the Company's gross premiums written since 2015. The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented the Company's underwriting and reserve standards, and failed to adequately reserve for losses. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process and risk management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves in its Specialty P&C segment; (ii) ProAssurance failed to properly assess a large national healthcare account that experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made when the account was underwritten; and (iii) as a result, ProAssurance was subject to a materially heightened risk of financial loss and reserve charges. On January 22, 2020, ProAssurance announced that because of a deteriorating loss experience related primarily to one large healthcare account underwritten in 2016, the Company was estimating a $37 million adverse development in its Specialty P&C loss reserves for the fourth quarter of 2019. Additionally, the Company stated that since mid-2019 it had been executing a "comprehensive underwriting strategy in response to emerging trends and changing conditions in healthcare professional liability." In response to these disclosures, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.18 per share, or 11%, to close at $33.40 per share on January 23, 2020. On February 20, 2020, ProAssurance announced its 2019 fourth quarter and full year results. The Company revealed that the adverse development from this one large national healthcare account was actually $51.5 million, much larger than the initial estimate of $37 million only a month prior. Then, on May 8, 2020, ProAssurance announced that the large healthcare client would likely not renew its policy and instead would likely exercise an option for tail coverage that would result in an additional $50 million in losses in the second quarter of 2020. This loss, when combined with the $51.5 adverse development, meant that the Company would suffer over $100 million in losses from a single account. In response to these disclosures, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.38 per share, or 22%, to close at $15.95 per share on May 8, 2020. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. If you suffered a loss you have until August 17, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] PROASSURANCE CORP: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against ProAssurance Corporation ("ProAssurance" or the "Company") (PRA), and certain of its executive officers, (collectively, "Defendants") on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired ProAssurance common stock between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased ProAssurance common stock during the Class Period and wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court by no later than August 17, 2020. You may contact Lester Hooker (lhooker@saxenawhite.com), a Director of Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the class action. You may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. ProAssurance is one of the largest medical liability insurance providers in the United States. ProAssurance's most important division is its Specialty Property and Casualty segment ("Specialty P&C"), which has consistently accounted for at least 60% of the Company's gross premiums written since 2015. This segment includes a healthcare professional liability line of business, primarily offered to healthcare providers. While the Company provides traditional liability insurance products, ProAssurance also provides "innovative and customized products to meet the risk management needs of larger healthcare organizations or groups." The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against ProAssurance and certain of its executive officers. The action alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented the Company's underwriting and reserve standards, and failed to adequately reserve for losses. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process and risk management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves in its Specialty P&C segment; (ii) ProAssurance failed to properly assess a large national healthcare account that experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made when the account was underwritten; and (iii) as a result, ProAssurance was subject to a materially heightened risk of financial loss and reserve charges. On January 22, 2020, ProAssurance announced that because of a deteriorating loss experience related primarily to one large healthcare account underwritten in 2016, the Company was estimating a $37 million adverse development in its Specialty P&C loss reserves for the fourth quarter of 2019. Additionally, the Company stated that since mid-2019 it had been executing a "comprehensive underwriting strategy in response to emerging trends and changing conditions in healthcare professional liability." In response to these disclosures, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.18 per share, or 11%, to close at $33.40 per share on January 23, 2020. On February 20, 2020, ProAssurance announced its 2019 fourth quarter and full year results. The Company revealed that the adverse development from this one large national healthcare account was actually $51.5 million, much larger than the initial estimate of $37 million only a month prior. Then, on May 8, 2020, ProAssurance announced that the large healthcare client would likely not renew its policy and instead would likely exercise an option for tail coverage that would result in an additional $50 million in losses in the second quarter of 2020. This loss, when combined with the $51.5 adverse development, meant that the Company would suffer over $100 million in losses from a single account. In response to these disclosures, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.38 per share, or 22%, to close at $15.95 per share on May 8, 2020. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the class action at www.saxenawhite.com. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, and California, concentrates its practice on prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. CONTACT INFORMATION Lester R. Hooker, Esq. lhooker@saxenawhite.com Saxena White P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Tel: (561) 206-6708 Fax: (561) 394-3382 www.saxenawhite.com [GN] PROASSURANCE CORP: Schall Law Files Class Action Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on June 17 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against ProAssurance Corporation ("ProAssurance" or "the Company") (NYSE: PRA) for violations of Section 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 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before August 17, 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. ProAssurance failed to maintain appropriate controls on underwriting and risk management, particularly in setting lose reserves. The Company was incapable of properly assessing a major healthcare account whose losses far exceeded assumptions that were made in underwriting. 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 ProAssurance, 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] RADIUS GLOBAL: Kahn Sues in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global Solutions LLC, et al. The case is styled as Levi Kahn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 7:20-cv-04778 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Radius Global Solutions is a provider of account recovery and debt collection, customer relationship management and healthcare revenue cycle management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces Matthews Class Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reckitt Benckiser LLC, et al. The case is styled as Thomas J. Matthews, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, RB Health (US) LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00854-NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal., June 19, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Reckitt Benckiser Group plc is a British multinational consumer goods company headquartered in Slough, England.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Rafael Straus, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW, P.C. 16748 McCormick St. Los Angeles, CA 91436 Phone: (917) 471-1894 Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Matthews Sues Over Neuriva's Deceptive Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC and RB HEALTH (US) LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-at-00603 (E.D. Cal., June 19, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, and various consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a uniformly deceptive advertising and marketing campaign of Neuriva Original and Neuriva Plus supplements by labeling the products' ingredients as backed by science and clinically proven to boost brain health and brain performance of consumers who use them. The Defendants' representations are designed to induce consumers to believe that Neuriva has been proven as a matter of fact to provide meaningful brain performance benefits. In reality, the Defendants have no scientific or clinical proof that the products provide any benefit to the brain or that the key advertised ingredients can actually access the brain in sufficient amounts, or in any amount, to provide meaningful brain performance benefit. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known about the truth, they would not have purchased Neuriva products. Reckitt Benckiser LLC is a manufacturer of dietary supplements with principal place of business located in Parsippany, New Jersey. RB Health (US) LLC is a manufacturer of dietary supplements with principal place of business located in Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 16748 McCormick Street Los Angeles, CA 91436 Telephone: (917) 471-1894 E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com - and – Adam A. Edwards, Esq. Rachel Soffin, Esq. Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. William A. Ladnier, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: adam@gregcolemanlaw.com rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com will@gregcolemanlaw.com - and – Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Martha A. Geer, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com martha@whitfieldbryson.com pat@whitfieldbryson.com - and – Matthew D. Schultz, Esq. LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, PA 316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7140 Facsimile: (850) 436-6140 E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com - and – Nick Suciu, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR, & SUCIU PLLC 1644 Bracken Rd. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com RETURN DISPOSAL: Smith Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN SMITH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RETURN DISPOSAL, LLC & TOBEN SCOTT, Case No. 7:20-cv-00145 (W.D. Tex., June 10, 2020), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants did not pay him for the hours he worked in excess of 40 per week "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed." The Defendants employed Mr. Smith as a pumper and later as an attendant. The Defendants are an oil field services company that disposes of oilfield waste.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net RM PARTNERS: Asner Appeals Ruling in Hengle Suit to 4th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Scott Asner and Joshua Landy filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled GEORGE HENGLE; SHERRY BLACKBURN; WILLIE ROSE; ELWOOD BUMBRAY; TIFFANI MYERS; STEVEN PIKE; SUE COLLINS; and LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCOTT ASNER; JOSHUA LANDY; RICHARD MOSELEY, JR.; RM PARTNERS, LLC; GOLDEN VALLEY LENDING, INC.; SILVER CLOUD FINANCIAL INC.; MOUNTAIN SUMMIT FINANCIAL, INC.; MAJESTIC LAKE FINANCIAL, INC.; and UPPER LAKE PROCESSING SERVICE, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00250-DJN, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is an action involving an illegal lending enterprise that flouts state usury laws through the tribal lending business model. According to the complaint, under the Defendants' lending business model, the payday lenders originate their loan products through a company "owned" by a Native American tribe and organized under its laws. The tribal company serves as a conduit for the loans, facilitating a dubious and legally incorrect claim that the loans are subject to tribal law, not the protections created by state usury and licensing laws. In exchange for the use of its name on the loan, the tribal company receives a small portion of the revenue and does not meaningfully participate in the day-to-day operations of the business. The appellate case is captioned as George Hengle v. Scott Asner, Case No. 20-1358, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees GEORGE HENGLE, SHERRY BLACKBURN, WILLIE ROSE, ELWOOD BUMBRAY, TIFFANI MYERS, STEVEN PIKE, SUE COLLINS, and LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, are represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq. Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com elizabeth@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com - and - Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7576 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com kkelly@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com - and - James Wilson Speer, Esq. VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER 919 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 782-9430 Facsimile: (804) 649-0974 E-mail: jay@vplc.org Defendants-Appellants SCOTT ASNER and JOSHUA LANDY are represented by: Jan Amber Larson, Esq. Thomas John Perrelli, Esq. Matthew E. Price, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK, LLP 1099 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 639-6000 E-mail: janlarson@jenner.com tperrelli@jenner.com mprice@jenner.com RM PARTNERS: Treppa Appeals Ruling in Hengle Suit to 4th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants SHERRY TREPPA, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled GEORGE HENGLE; SHERRY BLACKBURN; WILLIE ROSE; ELWOOD BUMBRAY; TIFFANI MYERS; STEVEN PIKE; SUE COLLINS; and LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCOTT ASNER; JOSHUA LANDY; RICHARD MOSELEY, JR.; RM PARTNERS, LLC; GOLDEN VALLEY LENDING, INC.; SILVER CLOUD FINANCIAL INC.; MOUNTAIN SUMMIT FINANCIAL, INC.; MAJESTIC LAKE FINANCIAL, INC.; and UPPER LAKE PROCESSING SERVICE, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00250-DJN, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is an action involving an illegal lending enterprise that flouts state usury laws through the tribal lending business model. According to the complaint, under the Defendants' lending business model, the payday lenders originate their loan products through a company "owned" by a Native American tribe and organized under its laws. The tribal company serves as a conduit for the loans, facilitating a dubious and legally incorrect claim that the loans are subject to tribal law, not the protections created by state usury and licensing laws. In exchange for the use of its name on the loan, the tribal company receives a small portion of the revenue and does not meaningfully participate in the day-to-day operations of the business. The appellate case is captioned as George Hengle v. Sherry Treppa, Case No. 20-1359, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees GEORGE HENGLE, SHERRY BLACKBURN, WILLIE ROSE, ELWOOD BUMBRAY, TIFFANI MYERS, STEVEN PIKE, SUE COLLINS, and LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, are represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq. Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com elizabeth@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com - and - Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7576 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com kkelly@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com - and - James Wilson Speer, Esq. VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER 919 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 782-9430 Facsimile: (804) 649-0974 E-mail: jay@vplc.org Defendants-Appellants SHERRY TREPPA, Chairperson of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Counsil; in her official capacity, TRACEY TREPPA, Vice-Chairperson of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Council; in her official capacity, KATHLEEN TREPPA, Treasurer of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Council; in her official capacity, IRIS PICTON, Secretary of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Council; in her official capacity, SAM ICAY, Member-At-Large of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Council; in her official capacity, AIMEE JACKSON-PENN, Member-At-Large of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Council; in her official capacity, and AMBER JACKSON, Member-At-Large of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Council; in her official capacity, are represented by: Rakesh Nageswar Kilaru, Esq. James Miller Rosenthal, Esq. Matthew R. Skanchy, Esq. Kosta S. Stojilkovic, Esq. Beth Ann Wilkinson, Esq. WILKINSON WALSH, LLP 2001 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 847-4046 E-mail: rkilaru@wilkinsonwalsh.com jrosenthal@wilkinsonwalsh.com mskanchy@wilkinsonwalsh.com kstojilkovic@wilkinsonwalsh.com bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com ROHR INC: Morgan May File 2nd Amended Complaint in Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- John Gonzalo Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned NATHANIEL MORGAN, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ROHR, INC., a corporation; HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, a corporation, d/b/a COLLINS AEROSPACE; UNITED TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG. (S.D. Cal.) On March 27, 2019, Plaintiff Nathaniel Morgan commenced the putative wage-and-hour class action complaint in the Solano County Superior Court, on behalf of all other non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants Rohr, Inc., Hamilton Sundstrand d/b/a UTC Aerospace Systems d/b/a Collins Aerospace and United Technologies Corporation. The proposed class is comprised of approximately 1,540 hourly non-exempt employees in California and includes employees who worked for a minimum of two locations, including one location in Chula Vista, California and one location in Riverside, California. Morgan was employed by Defendants at Defendants' Chula Vista facility as a non-exempt Operations Specialist in various departments from December 2014 to approximately December 2016, after which he was laid off. On April 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which added an allegation regarding the tolling of the statute of limitations, in Solano County Superior Court. On May 6, 2019, Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). On June 10, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC or alternatively, to transfer venue and dismiss or strike allegations in the FAC. On March 26, 2020, Judge Troy Nunley of the Eastern District granted Defendants' motion to transfer, denied the motion to dismiss and motion to strike without prejudice as moot and transferred the case to the Southern District of California. On April 7, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. On April 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC). Under the SAC, Plaintiff seeks to: (1) add a second plaintiff and proposed class representative, Michael Bevan, who was employed as a non-exempt worker in multiple positions (including Assembler and Quality Technician) from approximately 2013 to 2019 at a facility in Riverside; (2) eliminate certain issues raised by Defendants in their motion to dismiss including by removing the tolling allegation (Sixth Cause of Action) and removing references to Labor Code sections 226.3 and 1174 from the Seventh Cause of Action; (3) add factual details supporting his claims, including allegations regarding Plaintiff's employment status, Defendants' status as joint employers, as well as the alleged Labor Code violations; (4) remove the Doe defendants and add in a request for attorneys' fees. Plaintiff argues that the motion should be granted since (1) leave to amend is liberally allowed where a party seeks to plead additional facts to existing legal theories and address issues raised in a motion to dismiss, (2) Defendants will not suffer any prejudice by the filing of a SAC, particularly since no new legal theories are being pled and no discovery deadline, trial date or class certification briefing schedule has been set; (3) the proposed amendments would not be futile; and (4) Plaintiff's SAC would represent Plaintiff's first amended pleading filed in response to a pleading challenge. Defendants argue that Plaintiff should not be permitted to file the SAC since the proposed amendments are futile, the filing of the SAC would prejudice Defendants, and Morgan has failed to address and meet the standards set forth by Rule 20. Judge Curiel notes that Defendants argue that Plaintiff should not be permitted to amend because (1) the allegations regarding joint employer liability are futile since Plaintiff's allegations regarding wage statements are insufficient; (2) the allegations regarding Defendants' illegal practices and policies—including failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, overtime wages, and itemized statements, failure to provide calculation of total number of hours worked, and allegations regarding footwear and laundry costs - are also futile since Morgan's deposition testimony contradicts these claims; and finally, (3) the UCL claim is futile as a matter of law. Judge Curiel opines that on the first two categories of claims, leave to amend must be granted since they involve questions of fact that are not properly resolved prior to further development of the record. Second, to the extent that Defendants dispute the merits of the allegations, such disputes are "more appropriately determined by way of a fully briefed motion or a trial, rather than in the context of a motion for leave to amend." Judge Curiel notes that recovery under the UCL is limited to injunctive relief, and restitution and statutory penalties under the Labor Code are not recoverable under the UCL. While there is "no controlling precedent from the California Supreme Court" yet on this question, at least in this district, courts have found that recovery for meal period violations can be properly considered under the UCL, the Judge points out. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend with respect to these claims. As to Rule 20, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard under Rule 20 since he cannot establish that Bevan asserts any right arising out of the same transaction or occurrence that share common questions of law or fact with this lawsuit. Defendants ask the Court to consider the sufficiency of Plaintiff's pleadings and argue that the proposed amended allegations related to "joint employer" status do not create a legally cognizable legal right of action. While Defendants' argument may have merit, such a consideration is premature and the cases that Defendants cite are inapposite, Judge Curiel opines. On the issue of prejudice, Judge Curiel finds that the Defendants have not established that they have incurred substantial litigation expenses after the motion to amend was filed, and further, Defendants have not shown that these new allegations surprised them. Furthermore, it appears to the Court that the Plaintiffs have not shown undue delay or bad faith in a manner that would justify denial of leave to amend. In sum, Judge Curiel granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. A full-text copy of Judge Curiel's June 18, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y94to9h4 from Leagle.com. ROYAL CANIN: Remand of Wullschleger Suit to State Court Vacated --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's order of remand of the case, Anastasia Wullschleger; Geraldine Brewer Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc.; Nestle Purina Petcare Company Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 19-2645 (8th Cir.), to state court. Defendants Royal Canin and Nestle manufacture prescription pet foods that require the purchaser to consult with a veterinarian and obtain a prescription before purchase. According to the Defendants, prescription pet foods are therapeutic formulas for specific health issues, and they may not be tolerated by all pets. However, the Defendants have not submitted these pet foods for evaluation by the FDA, and a prescription is not required by law. On Feb. 8, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action in Jackson County, Missouri. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants' conduct amounted to a joint and coordinated violation of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") and the FDA's regulatory guidance in the Compliance Policy Guide ("CPG"). The complaint asserts only state law claims, including violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), Missouri antitrust laws, and Missouri unjust enrichment law. The Plaintiffs' prayer for relief includes claims for money damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief requiring that defendants comply with relevant state and federal laws. The Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) based on the diversity provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c)(1). It accepted the appeal solely to consider the issue of federal question jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit finds that the Plaintiffs' dependence on federal law permeates the allegations such that the antitrust and unjust enrichment claims cannot be adjudicated without reliance on and explication of federal law. Moreover, the Plaintiffs' prayer for relief invokes federal jurisdiction because it seeks injunctive and declaratory relief that necessarily requires the interpretation and application of federal law. After alleging violations of the FDCA throughout the complaint, the Plaintiffs request judgment: (1) "[f]inding, adjudging, and decreeing" that defendants have violated federal law; (2) enjoining defendants from engaging in further violations of federal law; and (3) estopping the Defendants from denying that prescription pet food is a "drug" and "enjoining Defendants to comply with all federal and Missouri provisions applicable to the manufacture of such drugs." The face of the Plaintiffs' complaint gives rise to federal question jurisdiction and their isolated focus on their alleged state law claims is nothing more than an apparent veil to avoid federal jurisdiction. Based on the allegations in the complaint and relief sought, the Eighth Circuit finds a federal issue surrounding the state law claims is (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. When all four of these requirements are met, federal jurisdiction is proper. Because it concludes that federal question jurisdiction exists, the Eighth Circut vacated the district court's order, and remanded case for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion. A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit March 13, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/ExK5eS from Leagle.com. Charles W. German -- harleyg@germanmay.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Daniel Rees Shulman, for Plaintiff-Appellee. James P. Frickleton, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Christopher M. Curran -- ccurran@whitecase.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Jason M. Hans -- jasonh@germanmay.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. John E. Schmidtlein -- jschmidtlein@wc.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Michael S. Hargens -- michael.hargens@huschblackwell.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Bryan A. Merryman -- bmerryman@whitecase.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Michael Patrick Morrill -- mikemorrill@popemcglamry.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Wade H. Tomlinson, III -- triptomlinson@popemcglamry.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Anne Tarvin -- info@goss-lawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. RYDER SYSTEM: Barbuto & Johansson Reminds of July 20 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO" or the "Firm") and Of Counsel, Neil Rothstein, Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action experience, including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON) remind investors of important deadlines approaching in securities fraud class action cases filed against the following companies: Baidu, Inc. (NasdaqGS: BIDU), Groupon, Inc. (NasdaqGS: GRPN), Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (NasdaqGS: LOPE), and Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE: R). If you purchased shares of BIDU, GRPN, LOPE and/or R within the Class Periods listed below, you may, without obligation or cost, contact attorney Anthony Barbuto at (888) 715-2520 or via email at anthony@barjolaw.com, or attorney Neil Rothstein via email at neil@barjolaw.com. Shareholders with losses exceeding $100,000 are encouraged to contact the Firm. Baidu, Inc. (BIDU) Class Period: 3/16/2019 - 4/7/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 22, 2020 FOR FURTHER DETAILS ABOUT THIS CASE: https://barjolaw.com/case/baidu Groupon, Inc. (GRPN) Class Period: 11/04/2019 - 2/18/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 29, 2020 FOR FURTHER DETAILS ABOUT THIS CASE: https://barjolaw.com/case/grpn Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE) Class Period: 1/05/2018 - 1/27/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 13, 2020 FOR FURTHER DETAILS ABOUT THIS CASE: https://barjolaw.com/case/lope Ryder System, Inc. (R) Class Period: 7/23/2015 - 2/13/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 20, 2020 FOR FURTHER DETAILS ABOUT THIS CASE: https://barjolaw.com/case/r The Firm follows the principles set forth in the case Berger v. Compaq, 257 F.3d 475 (5th Cir, 2001) which states "[c]lass action lawsuits are intended to serve as a vehicle for capable, committed advocates to pursue the goals of the class members through counsel, not for capable, committed counsel to pursue their own goals through the class members." BARJO believes strongly that the choice of a qualified lead plaintiff can have a significant impact on the successful outcome of a case. It is for this reason why BARJO encourages shareholders to contact the Firm to discuss the qualifications for lead plaintiff appointment. Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. Anthony Barbuto, Esq. 1-888-715-2520 12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101 Wellington, FL 33414 http://www.barjolaw.com[GN] SAFE CREDIT: Newbold Sues in Cal. Asserting Business Tort Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safe Credit Union, et al. The case is captioned as Daniel Newbold, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Safe Credit Union and Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2020-00280361-CU-BT-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 9, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of business tort-related laws. Safe Credit offers personal, business, and wealth management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. Sommers Schwartz, P.C. 402 W Broadway, Ste. 1760 San Diego, CA 92101-8546 Telephone: (619) 762-2125 Facsimile: (619) 762-2123 E-mail: TKashima@sommerspc.com SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Cert. Petition Filed in D.C. Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff D.C. filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled D.C., A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, HELEN GARTER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioner v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, A.B. AND JESSIE POLINSKY CHILDREN'S CENTER, SAN DIEGO HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Respondents, Case No. 19-1386. Response is due on July 17, 2020. Petitioner D.C., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Helen Garter, petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case titled D.C., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Helen Garter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-55853. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order denying D.C.'s motion for certification of a liability-only class on October 16, 2019. The questions presented are: 1. Does rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 23(c)(4)") require only that common questions predominate over individual ones within the specific issues that are certified (i.e., liability) rather than in the entire cause of action (i.e., liability and damages)? 2. When determining whether certification of a liability issue class is superior to individualized determinations of liability, is it an abuse of discretion for the court to consider individualized damages issues? 3. Does collateral estoppel apply to a governmental entity such as the County of San Diego? 4. Is it an abuse of discretion for the court, when conducting its superiority analysis, to disregard factors such as whether the case has "negative value and whether, therefore, absent certification class members will be unable to feasibly bring individual suits? As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the Plaintiff's motion to certify a liability-only class. D.C., on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, brought the action against the County of San Diego, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, for violation of his constitutional rights. He now appeals the district court's denial of his motion to certify a liability-only class. He contends that determination of the question of liability on the claims he seeks to advance could fit comfortably within the ambit of Rule 23(c)(4). Notwithstanding any success D.C. might have in advancing liability-only class claims against the County--and his burden has very likely been lightened by the decision in Mann v. County of San Diego, 907 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2018)--the Ninth Circuit holds that certification of such a class would be "appropriate" only if the adjudication of the certified issues would significantly advance the resolution of the underlying case, thereby achieving judicial economy and efficiency. Consideration of D.C.'s request for certification of a liability only class cannot be divorced from the impact the certification decision might have on the resolution of class claims. In his complaint, D.C. alleges that he and other putative class members suffered damages for, inter alia, emotional distress, humiliation, and loss of "human dignity" resulting from the County's overly intrusive physical examinations of them. The district court found that, regardless of any resolution of issues a liability-only class might afford, individualized injuries of each class member would still potentially require tens of thousands of trials. It was appropriate for the district court to bring its practical assessment and broader perspective to its consideration of D.C.'s request for certification of a liability-only class. Although the Court is mindful that individualized questions of damages cannot alone defeat class certification, the Plaintiffs seeking certification must nevertheless carry their burden of showing damages are capable of efficient calculation. The district court correctly recognized and applied this standard in considering D.C.'s request for certification of a Rule 23(c)(4) liability-only class, finding, within the bounds of its discretion, that D.C. failed to show that damages could be efficiently calculated on a class-wide basis following success in the liability phase of the litigation. Based on its finding that certification of a liability-only class would not significantly advance the resolution of the class claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying D.C.'s motion for certification of a liability-only class. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.[BN] Petitioner D.C., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Helen Garter, is represented by: Rachele Renee Byrd, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Norbert Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Kenyon Norbert, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Kenyon Norbert, et al. v. City & County of San Francisco, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02724-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. Plaintiffs Kenyon Norbert, Montrail Brackens, Jose Poot, Marshall Harris, Armando Carlos, Michael Brown, and Troy McAllister are individuals incarcerated in San Francisco County Jail 4 and San Francisco County Jail 5. On May 20, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, alleging that the conditions of their confinement violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Sections 7 and 17 of the California Constitution, and 15 C.C.R. 1065. Plaintiffs bring their claims against the San Francisco County Sheriff's Department and the City and County of San Francisco, as well as against Sheriff Vicki Hennessy, Captain Jason Jackson, Captain Kevin McConnell, and Chief Deputy Sheriff Paul Miyamoto in their individual capacities. The appellate case is captioned as Kenyon Norbert, et al. v. City & County of San Francisco, et al., Case No. 20-15449, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KENYON NORBERT, MONTRAIL BRACKENS, JOSE POOT, MARSHALL HARRIS, ARMANDO CARLOS, MICHAEL BROWN, and TROY MCALLISTER, on behalf of themselves individually and others similarly situated, as a class and Subclass, are represented by: Yolanda Huang, Esq. P.O. Box 5475 Berkeley, CA 94705 Telephone: (510) 329-2140 E-mail: yhuang.law@gmail.com Defendant-Appellee CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO is represented by: Margaret W. Baumgartner, Esq. SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1390 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 554-3859 - and - Dennis J. Herrera, Esq. CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 234 San Francisco, CA 94102-4682 Telephone: (415) 554-4748 E-mail: cityattorney@sfcityatty.org SANIMAX USA: Court OKs $750K Deal for South St. Paul Residents -------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Ferraro, writing for Pioneer Press, reports that shortly after LeAnne Renteria and her husband moved to South St. Paul in 2003, they got their first whiff of what gave the city its blue-collar reputation and "Cow Town" moniker: the stockyards. But when the yards closed in April 2008, a stench lingered. Over the years, residents and city officials have pointed fingers at Sanimax, a remnant of the yards that processes meat byproducts, hides and used cooking oil into animal feed and biofuels. "It's more of a rotting smell, versus just farm animals," Renteria said from her home in a neighborhood that sits on a hill just over a mile west of Sanimax. "The sad thing is I think people have just gotten used to it. Other people come here and go, 'Oh my gosh . . . it's horrible.' And it is . . . it's terrible." Now, Renteria and some residents soon will get some relief. This month, U.S. District Court Chief Judge John Tunheim approved a settlement agreement of a lawsuit filed by two South St. Paul residents against Sanimax USA in March 2018. The lawsuit, which was certified as a class action, alleges that the company's "noxious odors" from 505 Hardman Ave. "invade" the plaintiffs' properties, causing "damages through negligence, gross negligence and nuisance." The settlement agreement requires the Green Bay, Wis.-based company to pay $750,000 into a fund for qualifying class members. The company must also invest at least $450,000 on projects aimed at reducing pollutants, contaminants and odors emitting from the plant, which is situated in a business district along the Mississippi River and north of Interstate 494. In a statement on June 17, Sanimax general manager Donn Johnson said the company is "glad the litigation is behind everyone." "We have been a part of this wonderful community for the past half-century, and we remain open to productive community dialogue allowing us to continue for the next half-century," he continued. 1,500 RETURN CLAIM FORMS The two main plaintiffs were residents David Newfield and Patsy Keech, an Eagan High School teacher who lives across the street from Renteria. The plaintiffs were represented by Minneapolis attorney Jeff Storms and Liddle & Dubin, a Detroit-based law firm that filed a class-action lawsuit against Sanimax in 2014 on behalf of Green Bay residents. In October 2016, Sanimax agreed to payout $915,000 into a class settlement fund for thousands of Green Bay-area residents. It also agreed to put nearly $400,000 in improvements to its facility. A confidentiality clause in the South St. Paul settlement agreement prevents Newfield and Keech and the attorneys from discussing terms of the settlement. Documents filed in court show that claim forms were sent to 10,395 households that were believed to be the members who fell within the class definition: current or former owners or occupiers of South St. Paul residential property within a two-mile radius of Sanimax. Before the April 18 deadline, over 1,500 households returned claim forms seeking a distribution from a proposed settlement fund, court filings show. For representing the class, Keech and Newfield will be guaranteed $1,500 each. Sanimax must also pay attorney fees and costs totaling just over $300,000 - money that will be taken from the $750,000 fund. In January, Judge Tunheim denied a motion by neighboring Newport to join the lawsuit. Tunheim ruled that because the court was on the cusp of approving a proposed settlement agreement, the city's motion to intervene was not timely. He also concluded the city "does not meet the criteria for intervention." GOOD DAYS AND BAD DAYS Renteria, who joined the lawsuit after learning about it from Keech, said that when it comes to the stench, there are good days and bad, depending on what the facility is doing and which way the wind is blowing. She is not against Sanimax operating in town, she said. "I mean, I understand the business that they're doing and I see a need for it, but I also don't think people should have to endure that smell, either," she said. For her, she said, it was never about being compensated monetarily, but action to reduce or eliminate the odor. "I don't even know if there's a way to fix it. I hope there is," she said. "Everybody is getting x-amount of dollars. Well, if it doesn't fix the smell, what good is it? I'm hoping we don't have to smell this smell anymore, or at least it's not nearly as bad as it has been at times." [GN] SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Faces Rodriguez Personal Injury Suit in Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al. The case is styled as John Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., Chattem, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-22541-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products. Areas that Sanofi US cover include cardiovascular disease, central nervous system ailments, and metabolic disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia Melville, Esq. HEISE SUAREZ MELVILLE, P.A. 1600 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1205 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 800-4476 Email: pmelville@hsmpa.com SCHENKER INC: Court Dismisses Ramos Labor Suit Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Josephine L. Staton of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed without prejudice the case, ARTHUR RAMOS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. SCHENKER, INC., an unknown business entity; SCHENKER LOGISTICS, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01551 JLS (KKx) (C.D. Cal.), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/e7oiEC from Leagle.com. Authur Ramos, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice PC, Elizabeth Parker-Fawley, Lawyers for Justice PC, Jill Jessica Parker, Lawyers for Justice PC & Paul Keith Haines -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC. Enrique Juarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, represented by Mehrdad Bokhour, Bokhour Law Group APC. Armando Fernandez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, represented by Paul Keith Haines, Haines Law Group APC, Sean M. Blakely, Haines Law Group APC & Jamin Xu, Haines Law Group. Tabitha Parker, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; & Regina McCorkle, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, represented by Gregg Lander, Law Offices of Kevin T Barnes, Kevin T. Barnes, Law Offices of Kevin T Barnes, Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Feldman Browne Olivares APC & Raphael Albert Katri, Law Offices of Raphael A Katri. Schenker, Inc., an unknown business entity, Defendant, represented by Curtis Alan Graham, Littler Mendelson PC, Everett Clifton Martin, IV -- cmartin@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Hovannes G. Nalbandyan -- hnalbandyan@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. Primeskill Staffing Services, a California corporation; Defendant, represented by Leonard Brazil -- LBrazil@ClarkTrev.com -- Clark and Trevithick. SCHENKER INC: Orpilla Remanded to Santa Clara County Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has remanded the case, MICHELLE ORPILLA, Plaintiff, v. SCHENKER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-08392-BLF (N.D. Cal.) to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara. Orpilla commenced the putative class action against Defendant Schenke for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by the Defendant on Nov. 20, 2017. When the Plaintiff applied for employment, the Defendant performed a background investigation on her. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant failed to provide legally compliant disclosures and authorization forms to her. She further alleges that the Defendant routinely acquires consumer, investigative consumer and/or consumer credit reports to conduct background checks on her and the other prospective, current and former employees and uses information from credit and background reports in connection with its hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the FCRA. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "credit and background reports" are "consumer reports" within the meaning of section 1681a(d)(1) of the FCRA. She further alleges that the Defendant's "credit and background reports" violated Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) of the FCRA, which establishes the conditions upon which employers may furnish and use consumer reports. According to her, the Defendant's disclosures violated the FCRA because they are embedded with extraneous information, and are not clear and unambiguous disclosures in stand-alone documents. The Plaintiff alleges two instances of "extraneous information" in the disclosures in violation of the stand-alone disclosure requirement of FCRA. First, the disclosures that she received included state-specific disclosure applicable to New York applicants or employees. Second, the Defendant required a "liability release" in the disclosure form, which the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has found to be in violation of the FCRA Section 1681 b(b)(2)(A). The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant acted in deliberate or reckless disregard of their obligations and the rights of applicants and employees because (1) it is a large corporation with access to legal advice; (2) it requires authorization to perform credit and background checks in its employment application process; (3) the statute's language is clear as to the requirements for the disclosures; and (4) the FTC statement regarding impermissibility of "liability waiver" in disclosures predates the Defendant's As a result of the Defendant's unlawful procurement of credit and background reports by way of their inadequate disclosures, the Plaintiff alleges that she and the other similarly situated individuals were injured, including but not limited to, having their privacy and statutory rights invaded in violation of the FCRA. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory damages and/or actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive and equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On Nov. 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action against the Defendant in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. The Complaint alleges one cause of action for violation of sections 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681b(b)(2)(A) of the FCRA. On Dec. 23, 2019, the Defendants removed the action to Federal Court because the Plaintiff brought a federal claim arising under the FCRA. The Plaintiff moves the Northern California District Court to remand the action to the California state court because there is no Article III standing since the background check claims brought by the Plaintiff under the FCRA does not assert that she has suffered an injury in fact that would satisfy Article III's case and controversy requirement. On review, Judge Freeman holds that the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to establish Article III standing. While procedural violations that have resulted in real harm may be sufficient to meet the "injury-in-fact" requirement of Article III, the Plaintiff has alleged no such injury. Instead, the crux of her Complaint is that the disclosure form did not technically comply with the requirements of the FCRA. It is the kind of bare procedural violation that the Supreme Court described in Spokeo as insufficient. Judge Freeman is not persuaded that the Plaintiff has evaded federal jurisdiction by "artful pleading" or that she was required to plead additional facts in her Complaint or disclaim injury-in-fact in her Motion to Remand. The Judge finds that under the CAFA framework, the Eleventh Circuit put the burden on plaintiffs who had better access to information about the scope and composition of that class. In contrast, the Plaintiff is not invoking an exception to federal jurisdiction. The Judge then finds that jurisdictional discovery is not warranted. The Defendant's authority on jurisdictional discovery is not persuasive. The removal was not based on diversity jurisdiction and thus the amount-in-controversy is not at issue. Finally, in its opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion, the Defendant argues that the case has "no connection to Northern California." It has separately filed a motion to transfer the case to Virginia. First, the Defendant's arguments regarding improper venue are irrelevant to the Motion to Remand and therefore the District Court need to address them. Second, because the District Court has decided that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, the Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the District of Virginia is terminated as moot. In sum, Judge Freeman granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, and terminated as moot the Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the District of Virginia. A full-text copy of Judge Freeman's May 12, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/hjMOOn from Leagle.com. SCWORX CORP: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 29 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in SCWorx Corp. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. SCWorx Corp. (WORX) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/scworx-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=7342&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2020 Class Period: April 13, 2020 - April 17, 2020 Allegations against WORX include that: (1) SCWorx's supplier for COVID-19 tests had previously misrepresented its operations; (2) SCWorx's buyer was a small company that was unlikely to adequately support the purported volume of orders for COVID-19 tests; (3) as a result, the Company's purchase order for COVID-19 tests had been overstated or entirely fabricated; 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. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] SEA & SALT: Cisneros Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- TEOTIMO CISNEROS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- SEA & SALT SEAFOOD CORP. (D/B/A SEA & SALT SEAFOOD CORP.) and SU YONG LEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04001 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Cisneros is a former employee of Defendants who was employed as a fish cutter from approximately February 1, 1997 until on or about April 28, 2020. Sea & Salt Seafood Corp., d/b/a Sea & Salt Seafood Corp., operates a fish market located in the South Bronx, 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 SIGUE CORP: Faces Babare TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL BABARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIGUE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00894-JCC (W.D. Wash., June 9, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to his and Class Members' cellular telephones causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct, including any attempts in the future to promote its services using unsolicited text messages. Sigue provides payment processing services. The Company offers money transfer, bill payment, and other services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-400-4713 E-mail: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Kira M. Rubel, Esq. THE HARBOR LAW GROUP 3615 Harborview Drive, NW, Suite C. Gig Harbor, WA 98332-2129 Telephone: 253-251-2955 E-mail: Kira@theharborlawgorup.com SK UNITED: Riley Seeks to Certify Drivers' Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as ROGER RILEY, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SK UNITED CORP., A Texas Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-10577-PDB-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective; 2. approving his proposed "Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit" and "Consent to Join Lawsuit" forms, and authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to circulate the Proposed Notice via first-class mail and e-mail to the proposed FLSA collective, defined as: "all current and former day-rate-paid Drivers who worked for Defendant in the United States at any time from three years prior to the date the Court grants conditional certification through a date specified by the Court; 3. requiring the Defendant to identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing their names, last known addresses, dates of employment, job titles, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in an electronic and importable format within 10 days of the entry of the order; and 4. allowing putative FLSA collective members 60 days from circulation of the notice to file written consent forms; The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant unlawfully maintained a common policy of paying him and other similarly situated on a straight day rate and depriving them of overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant is a package delivery corporation, which contracts with FedEx and other larger companies to deliver packages in Michigan and other states.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: 248-355-0300 E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com crash@sommerspc.com SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 27 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 15 disclosed that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Sorrento Therapeutics Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (SRNE) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/sorrento-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7348&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020 Class Period: May 15, 2020 - May 22, 2020 Allegations against SRNE include that: (i) the Company's initial finding of "100% inhibition" in an in vitro virus infection will not necessarily translate to 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, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] SOUTH STATE: Austin Sues Over Illegal Collection of Overdraft Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, KAREN AUSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. SOUTH STATE BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01993-RMG (D.S.C., May 26, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violation of its contractual agreements with accountholders. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive practices of assessing and collecting overdraft fees on the checking accounts of the Plaintiff and Class members that were never actually overdrawn and routinely charging multiple fees more than one overdraft fees or non-sufficient funds fees on a single item. These practices breach the company's account contract documents which indicate that South State will only charge overdraft fees or non-sufficient funds fees on debit card transactions where there are insufficient funds to cover them; and will only charge one such fee on a given item. South State Bank is a financial services company based in Columbia, South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 N. Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 Facsimile: (828) 257-2767 E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and – Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com - and – Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. Daniel Tropin, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com tropin@kolawyers.com SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Makes Attempt to Avert "Opt Out" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stuff.co.nz reports that Southern Response is making a final attempt to avoid an "opt out" class action case over the allegation it underpaid when settling Canterbury earthquake insurance claims. Some policy holders claim Southern Response did not disclose full repair and rebuild costs in settlement negotiations, so they were not aware of entitlements they could have received. It was estimated about 3,000 policy holders may have settled claims based on incomplete information. The class action is in the name of Brendan and Colleen Ross, against Southern Response, and everyone affected by the issue would be included unless they opted out of the case. The Court of Appeal approved the "opt out" approach. Southern Response has appealed against the decision at a hearing in the Supreme Court in Wellington starting on June 15. Its lawyer, Tom Weston, QC, said the Law Commission was looking at the issue and it should be left to finish its very broad review of class actions. Changes could be done by law reform, he said. His submission that in the past people had to "opt in" to a class or representative action, was questioned by one of the five judges, Justice Joe Williams. The judge said class action was the standard approach in Maori cases with the chief being plaintiff for everyone. Courts didn't bat an eyelid when it was the chief of the tribe running the case, he said. Weston said in the aftermath of the Canterbury earthquakes contact details for people were lost. There was a distinct possibility that not everyone affected even knew about the case, Weston said. A decision or settlement of the case would remove the rights of people to take their own claims unless they had opted out of the class action claim. People would be swept up without their knowledge so they would be no longer able to chart their own course, Weston said. It might also expose some claimants to counter claims from Southern Response, he said. Also, in New Zealand so far, if people opt in to a class action they sign up to arrangements to fund the class action but the funding of opt out cases was not clear cut. A litigation funder has agreed to pay the costs of the class action against Southern Response in return for a share of any award. As well as the class action, Christchurch homeowners Karl and Alison Dodds took their own case against Southern Response, which they won in the High Court. The Court of Appeal recently heard Southern Response's appeal against that decision. The court is yet to give its judgment. Weston said the decision in the Dodds case could affect how Southern Response proceeded in the class action. Southern Response was set up by the Government when insurer AMI failed in 2012, to settle outstanding claims from policy holders. If Southern Response loses the class action it could cost the Government millions of dollars. The Supreme Court appeal hearing was expected to end on June 16. [GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: COBRA Notice Untimely, Carter Says ------------------------------------------------------ CHERRITA CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Defendant, Case 8:20-cv-01381-WFJ-JSS (M.D. Fla., June 15, 2020) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"), by failing to provide her with a timely COBRA notice that complies with the law. The Defendant failed to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan, including the Plaintiff and the Class, with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute. Southwest Airlines Co. Board Of Trustees is the plan administrator of the Southwest Airlines Co. Welfare Benefit Plan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com - and - Chad A. Justice, Esq. JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC 1205 N Franklin St., Suite 326 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 566-0550 Facsimile: (813) 566-0770 E-mail: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com STATE FARM: Turek Enterprises Sues Over Denied Insurance Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Turek Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Alcona Chiropractic, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-11655-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., June 23, 2020), seeks declaratory and other relief on its behalf and on behalf of all other policyholders in the State of Michigan whose claims were preemptively denied by the Defendants. The Plaintiff contends that there is coverage against losses and damages suffered by Michigan policyholders under each of three coverages, "Loss of Income" coverage, "Extra Expense" coverage, and "Civil Authority" coverage provided by the Defendants' standard-form policies of insurance. The Plaintiff purchased a standard-form all-risk "Businessowners Coverage Form" property and casualty insurance policy from the Defendants. The Policy promised to provide coverage in the event of a risk causing (1) "direct physical loss of" or (2) "damage to Covered Property" at the Plaintiff's premises. Like all other standard-form small business policies, the Policy provided "Loss of Income" and "Civil Authority" coverage, the Plaintiff says. Under these coverages, if for any non-excluded reason, the Plaintiff's business was "suspended," the Defendants promised to pay the Plaintiff's lost net income plus costs the Plaintiff needed to pay payroll and maintain its business. The State of Michigan under its emergency police powers issued Executive Order No. 2020-21, effective March 24, 2020. The Order prevented the Plaintiff from operating its chiropractic office. On March 24, 2020, the Plaintiff's and the class's businesses suffered "physical loss" and a "damage to" property, according to the complaint. Both the text of the Policy and case law have interpreted "damage" or "loss" as a diminution in value, financial detriment, curtailment of right to full ownership; an undesirable outcome of a risk; or an actual change in insured property causing it to become unsatisfactory for future use. The Plaintiff's and the class's right to full and unencumbered use of their covered business and personal property was thus compromised. The March 24 Order was the sole, direct and only proximate cause of the business losses suffered by the Plaintiffs and the class. As the State of Michigan issued the shutdown Order, and other states issued other versions of their economic shutdowns, the insurance industry began a public campaign that a so-called "virus exclusion" prohibited any coverage "against the Pandemic," the Plaintiff avers. But this interpretation of the exclusion is utterly wrong, the Plaintiff contends. The Covid-19 virus was not the direct cause of the property damage at issue. The State did not order the Plaintiff, or any proposed class member, to suspend its operation because its premises needed to be de-contaminated from the Covid-19 virus. The State issued its Order to ensure the absence of the virus, or persons carrying the virus, from the Plaintiff's premises, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that there is no evidence at all that the virus did enter the Plaintiff's property or that it had to be de-contaminated. The Plaintiff asserts that the premise under which the "virus exclusion" was included in standard-form all risk policies like the one at issue was the opposite of the risk here. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the "virus exclusion" is inapplicable, procured through fraud or misrepresentation, and therefore void. Plaintiff Turek Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Alcona Chiropractic, is the owner and operator of a chiropractor's office located in Harrisville, Michigan. The Defendants sell insurance through Michigan-based agents and brokers and is qualified to conduct insurance business within the State of Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth F. Neuman, Esq. Jennifer M. Grieco, Esq. Stephen T. McKenney, Esq. ALTIOR LAW, P.C. 401 S. Old Woodward, Suite 460 Birmingham, MI 48009 Phone: (248) 594-5252 Email: kneuman@altiorlaw.com jgrieco@altiorlaw.com smckenney@altiorlaw.com - and - Andrew Kochanowski, Esq. Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Robert B. Sickels, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: 248-355-0300 Email: akochanowski@sommerspc.com jthompson@sommerspc.com rsickels@sommerspc.com STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Davison Balks at Menarini Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM DAVISON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS, INC., IVAN BERGSTEIN, RON BENTSUR, DARREN CLINE, ALAN FORMAN, MARK SARD, KENNETH ZUERBLIS, BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, MERCURY MERGER SUB, INC., and A. MENARINI-INDUSTRIE FARMACEUTICHE RIUNITE S.R.L., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00688-UNA (D. Del., May 22, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of the public stockholders of Stemline Therapeutics, Inc. against Stemline's Board of Directors for their violations of Section 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Board's attempt to sell the Company to A. Menarini-Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite S.r.l. through its wholly owned subsidiary Berlin-Chemie AG and its wholly owned subsidiary Mercury Merger Sub, Inc. According to the complaint, Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading solicitation statement (the "14D-9") to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2020. The 14D-9 recommends that Stemline stockholders tender their shares in favor of a proposed transaction whereby Stemline is acquired by Menarini. The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on May 4, 2020, when Stemline and Menarini announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Menarini will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Stemline for $11.50 in cash and one contingent value right valued at $1.00 per share. The deal is valued at approximately $677 million and is expected to close in the second quarter of 2020. The 14D-9 is materially incomplete and contains misleading representations and information in violation of Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the 14D-9 contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the sales process, financial projections prepared by Stemline management, and the financial analyses conducted by PJT Partners LP and BofA Securities, Inc., Stemline's financial advisors. Stemline Therapeutics, Inc. is a New York-based commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel oncology therapeutics. Berlin-Chemie AG is a German Pharmaceutical company based in Berlin, Germany. It is part of the Menarini Group. Mercury Merger Sub, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Berlin-Chemie AG. A. Menarini–Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite S.r.l. is an Italian pharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq. ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 400-1920 Facsimile: (914) 301-3514 SUBWAY FRANCHISEE: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Soliman TCPA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Subway Franchisee Advertising filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated March 5, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising, Case No. 19-cv-592, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Marina Soliman alleges that Subway has violated TCPA and has invaded her privacy rights through its marketing communications that use an automatic telephone dialing system. Plaintiff Soliman also alleges that Subway did not have prior express written consent to send the marketing text messages to her cell phone, especially after she had clearly and expressly requested that Subway cease sending text messages. Through Subway's aforementioned conduct, Soliman suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected by the TCPA. The appellate case is captioned as Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising, Case No. 20-946, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Marina Soliman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Brenden P. Leydon, Esq. WOCL LEYDON LLC 77 Old Wagon Road Stamford, CT 06903 Telephone: (203) 333-3339 E-mail: BLeydon@tooherwocol.com Defendant-Appellant Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, LTD. is represented by: Brian T. Feeney, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 988-7812 E-mail: feeneyb@gtlaw.com SUPERIOR ENERGY: Underpays Field Service Advisors, Brown Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- DEWAYNE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC., and CSI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00489-GBW-CG (D.N.M., May 21, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Field Service Advisor. According to the complaint, Field Service Supervisors, including Plaintiff, regularly work more than 12 hours in a day and more than 80 hours in a week. But, Defendants refuse to pay them overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Allegedly, Defendants paid its Field Service Advisors a base salary and a day-rate only regardless of the numbers of hours they worked that day or in that workweek, instead of paying them an amount equal to one and one-half times their regular rates of pay pursuant to FLSA. Superior Energy Services, Inc. and CSI Technologies, LLC are oilfield services companies providing drilling cement services to wells throughout the U.S., including in New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Tel: 903-596-7100 Fax: 469-533-1618 Email: info@hommelfirm.com SVA HEALTHCARE: Navigators Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed without prejudice the case, NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SVA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, and TIMOTHY RAVE, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Necessary party, Case No. 18-cv-1062-jdp (W.D. Wis.). Plaintiff Navigators is seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Defendant SVA on claims in Rave v. SVA Healthcare Services, LLC, No. 18cv609, a class action filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. The Plaintiffs in the Rave case contend that SVA violated Wis. Stat. Section 146.83 by overcharging patients for copies of medical records. The Court has directed the parties to address questions related to whether the case was properly filed in the Court: (1) whether there is complete diversity of citizenship for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332; and (2) whether the Court should abstain from granting declaratory relief because Navigators can seek a coverage determination in the state court action. The Court also asked the parties to discuss the role of "necessary party" Timothy Rave in the case. Specifically, Navigators appears to be seeking a declaration that binds not just Rave but also the class in state court action, but Navigators had neither sought certification of a class nor explained its legal basis for binding the class. In its response to the Court's order, Navigators admits that it doesn't know whether there is complete diversity between the parties. SVA is a limited liability company, which means that its citizenship is determined by the citizenship of its members. But Navigators doesn't know the identity of Navigators' members or the members' citizenship. Without that information, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the case. Navigators contends that dismissal is not required for two reasons. First, it says that it alleged in its complaint that SVA is "a citizen of Wisconsin," and SVA admitted that allegation in its answer. It cites Medical Assurance Co. v. Hellman, for the proposition that an unchallenged allegation of citizenship is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Judge Peterson holds that Medical Assurance is distinguishable, both factually and in its procedural posture. The parties at issue in Medical Assurance were individuals, not limited liability companies, so determining their citizenship was a more straightforward exercise. An allegation that a limited liability company is "a citizen of Wisconsin" is uninformative because the company can be a citizen of more than one state. Without information about the company's members, any allegation about citizenship is simply too conclusory to provide a basis for jurisdiction. And Medical Assurance was describing what was necessary for establishing jurisdiction at the pleading stage, not at summary judgment as in the case. Second, Navigators asks the Court for an opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery if it determines that it doesn't have enough information to determine jurisdiction. But it is well established that the proponent of jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating that the requirements for diversity are met. Even when the opposing party doesn't object, subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived and should be considered when fairly in doubt. So Navigators should have known that it needed to present evidence of diversity before moving for summary judgment. The Court need not decide whether to give Navigators an opportunity to conduct discovery because Navigators hasn't shown that it is an appropriate case for granting declaratory relief. Federal courts have substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants. One common reason for declining to exercise that discretion is that "the questions in controversy between the parties to the federal suit can better be settled in a proceeding pending in state court. That is the situation in the instant case. The bottom line is that Navigators hasn't identified any reason why it didn't move to intervene in the state court action rather than litigate separately in federal court. So the Court will exercise its discretion and decline to entertain Navigators' request for a declaratory judgment. The dismissal will be without prejudice. If Navigators is unable to obtain relief in state court, it may seek to reopen the case, subject to showing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Peterson declined to consider the Plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment because the questions it is raising are better settled in a proceeding pending in state court. The Judge dismissed the case without prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/JS0NoC from Leagle.com. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly E. Blair -- kimberly.blair@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP. SVA Healthcare Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bryan J. Cecil -- bcecil@hansenreynolds.com -- Hansen Reynolds, LLC & Timothy Michael Hansen -- thansen@hansenreynolds.com -- Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger LLC. Timothy Rave, Individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Defendant, represented by Robert Welcenbach, Welcenbach Law Offices, S.C. TACTILE SYSTEMS: Barbuto Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO") and Of Counsel, Neil Rothstein, Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action experience, including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON) advise that it has commenced an investigation into Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NasdaqGS: TCMD) ("Tactile" or the "Company") on behalf of investors as to whether Tactile and certain of its executives have engaged in fraud, negligence or other unlawful business practices in violation of the federal securities laws. On June 8, 2020, the Office of Strategic Shorts ("OSS Research") published a report suggesting a strong sell and revealing a kickback scheme as the true source of Tactile's growth. The report stated that Medicare has recently launched an industry-wide audit in which Tactile has been disproportionately targeted, where "71% of Tactile's claims audited so far have been denied for failure to establish medical necessity." The report also noted that Tactile has seen multiple key executive departures in recent years, with various insiders selling more than 50% of their shareholdings in 2019 since a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas suggesting that Tactile is "employing borderline to potentially illegal marketing schemes to induce sales growth and share gains." After news of OSS Research's report, Tactile's stock price fell approximately 10% to close at $47.26 per share on June 8, 2020. The stock price has continued to decline, falling below $40.00 per share. The Firm encourages shareholders who have suffered substantial losses in Tactile to contact attorney Anthony Barbuto, Esq. at (888) 715-2520 or via email anthony@barjolaw.com; or Neil Rothstein, Esq. via email at neil@barjolaw.com, free of charge, to discuss this case and shareholder rights. Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. Anthony Barbuto, Esq. 1-888-715-2520 12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101 Wellington, FL 33414 http://www.barjolaw.com[GN] TENDERLOIN HOUSING: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Fenix Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON FENNIX, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-584834 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., June 9, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum and straight time wages, to pay overtime compensation, to provide meal periods, and to permit rest periods, in violation of the California Labor Code. Ms. Fennix is a California resident, who worked for the Defendants in San Francisco County as a case manager from October 2018 to September 5, 2019. Tenderloin operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization offers property management, community organizing, and housing, legal, and support services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com allen.fechali@moonyanglaw.com TIME INC: California Court Dismisses Hall Suit With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, dismissed with prejudice the case, LINDA HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIME, INC., MEREDITH CORP., and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. SACV 19-01153-CJC (ADSx) (C.D. Cal.). A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/1uxzHI from Leagle.com. Linda Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David P. Pruett -- dppruett@cktfmlaw.com -- Carroll Kelly Trotter Franzen and McBride & Michael John Trotter -- mitrotter@cktfmlaw.com -- Caroll Kelly Trotter Franzen McBride and Peabody. Time, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Meredith Corp, an Iowa corporation, Defendants, represented by Dante A. Marinucci -- dmarinucci@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Marcus Shane McCutcheon -- mmccutcheon@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP, Michael K. Farrell -- mfarrell@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice & Kyle Thomas Cutts -- kcutts@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP. TRANSCOM WORLDWIDE: Carbajal Seeks Pay for Call Center Staff ------------------------------------------------------------ ANAHI CARBAJAL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. TRANSCOM WORLDWIDE (US) INC. Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00611 (W.D. Tex., May 22, 2020) is a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and a class action pursuant to the state laws of Texas to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, and other applicable penalties. The FLSA Collective Members are those current and former non-exempt, hourly call-center employees and at-home agents who were employed by Transcom anywhere in the United States at any time during the last three years through the final disposition of this matter, and have been subjected to the same illegal pay system under which Plaintiff Carbajal worked and was paid. Transcom Worldwide (US) Inc.is a global leader in customer experience management doing business in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE: Hong Suit Seeks Insurance Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------ JAE Y. HONG, PLLC, and PUYALLUP ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05556-BHS (W.D. Wash., June 9, 2020), seeks to ensure that the Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are entitled and for which they paid. The Plaintiffs contend that that the Defendant promises to pay them for "direct physical loss of or damage to" to covered property. The Policy includes coverage for risks of both damage to and loss of covered property. On March 19, 2020, Governor Jay Inslee issued Proclamation 20-24, "Restrictions on Non-Urgent Medical Procedures." The Plaintiffs own and operate an oral and maxillofacial surgical dental business located at 4202 10th 26 Street SE, Puyallup, Washington. The Plaintiffs contend that their property cannot be used for its intended purposes. As a result, the Plaintiffs have experienced and will experience loss covered by the Transportation policy or policies. After their business was shut down in March 2020, the Plaintiffs sought coverage for their loss. By letter dated April 20, 2020, Transportation denied coverage for the loss. The Defendant is an insurance carrier duly organized and existing under the laws the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amy Williams Derry, Esq. Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Ian S. Birk, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Irene M. Hecht, Esq. Maureen Falecki, Esq. Nathan Nanfelt, Esq. Alison Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: awilliam-derry@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com ibirk@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com ihecht@kellerrohrback.com mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com nnanfelt@kellerrrohrback.com achase@kellerrohrback.com TYSON FOODS: Faces Antitrust Investigation Amid Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ David McLaughlin, Lydia Mulvany and Michael Hirtzer, writing for Bloomberg News, report that the Trump administration is launching what could turn out to be the biggest attack in a century against the giants of America's meat industry, which already faced uproar over employee treatment during the pandemic. The Justice Department is bringing criminal charges in the poultry industry just as it opens a formal probe of beef companies. Regulators are also scrutinizing potential price manipulation, and on Capitol Hill, lawmakers are clamoring for a crackdown. The threat from Washington is casting further spotlight on the industry after coronavirus outbreaks saw thousands of workers get sick, forcing plants to shutter. President Donald Trump in early May said he'd have the Justice Department look into beef prices, which more than doubled in about a month. The timing of the moves is interesting given that farmers have long complained about the dominance of just a handful of companies in beef and poultry markets, but antitrust enforcers haven't before taken significant action against the companies. The heightened scrutiny comes less than five months ahead of November's presidential election. Action by either the Justice Department or the Department of Agriculture could shore up U.S. farmers, a key Trump constituency that's been battered by his trade war with China. "The market's been broken for a long time, and the pandemic has just made it worse. Meatpackers are making record profits, and the ranchers are going out of business," said Ben Gotschall, the interim executive director for the Organization for Competitive Markets, an advocacy group that opposes consolidation in agriculture. "Whatever Trump's motivation might be, if he does the right thing you have to take it. I hope it's more than just lip service." At issue is whether meat behemoths are thwarting competition in violation of antitrust laws. Prosecutors at the Justice Department this month said executives at two chicken producers, including the second biggest in the U.S. -- Pilgrim's Pride Corp. -- illegally conspired to fix prices, and they hinted at additional charges in the industry. The department is also setting its sights on beef companies in a separate antitrust investigation, issuing subpoenas to the four biggest producers -- Tyson Foods Inc., JBS SA, Cargill Inc. and National Beef Inc. They control more than two-thirds of all U.S. beef processing. Cargill and Tyson declined to comment on the probes and livestock pricing. National Beef didn't respond to emails seeking comment. JBS, which also owns Pilgrim's Pride, didn't respond. The power of the meatpackers today echoes the early 20th century when the industry was dominated by a handful of companies known as the "beef trust." A report by the Federal Trade Commission in 1919 found the five biggest companies, controlling about 82% of cattle slaughter, monopolized the market and crushed competition. The findings helped lead to an antitrust settlement against the industry in 1920 aimed at protecting competition. If the Justice Department finds evidence in its current investigation that meatpackers are violating the antitrust laws, it can sue the companies to stop the conduct or negotiate a settlement like it did in its probe a century ago, when the companies agreed to restrictions such as not owning stockyards or retail meat businesses. The investigation could also be closed without action, which the department did earlier this year when it abandoned a probe into automakers over an emissions agreement with California. Criminal investigations like the one involving chicken processors carry higher stakes -- executives can go to jail and companies can be criminally fined. Shares Lag Meat company shares have underperformed in the wake of the probes and the scrutiny of the industry. Since March 31, Tyson's stock is up a little more than 7%, while Pilgrim's Pride is little changed. Sao Paulo-based JBS rose about 8% in Brazilian trading. The S&P 500 Index has jumped about 18% this quarter. Tyson, America's top meat producer, said it's cooperating in the chicken price-fixing probe with the Justice Department's antitrust division through its leniency program, which allows companies that report misconduct to avoid charges in exchange for cooperation. The company has declined to comment on how long it has been working with the Justice Department and whether it's also cooperating in the beef probe. Jayson Penn, the now-CEO of chicken giant Pilgrim's Pride who faces as many as 10 years in prison in the chicken probe, entered a not-guilty plea June 4 in Colorado federal court. It's not just the Justice Department taking action. Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill are also raising alarm bells. Last month, 19 senators, many from agriculture states, asked the Justice Department to look into whether the companies are suppressing prices paid for cattle. They warned that market conditions could lead to "widespread collapse" of the ranching industry and open the door to meatpackers acquiring cattle operations. Lawmakers also are pushing federal officials to ease regulations on meat processing, which could help reduce costs and lower the bar for new smaller entrants into the industry. Legislation has been proposed that would allow, for example, meat plants that are inspected by state officials to sell products across state lines. "We've not seen this kind of attention since the early 1900s," said Bill Bullard, the chief executive officer of R-CALF USA, a trade association for ranchers that says the big packing companies are hurting cattle producers. "We're in a precarious position now that necessitates congressional intervention." Meat plant shutdowns in April and May sparked shortages at grocery stores and even Wendy's Co. dropped burgers from some menus. Though it was just about a dozen plant closures, producers have such a stranglehold on output that it leaves few remedies when even a handful of facilities are down. The shutdown of a single large beef processing plant can result in the loss of more than 10 million servings of beef in a single day, the White House said in a statement outlining Trump's late April executive order directing meatpackers to keep facilities running. In total, U.S. commercial cattle slaughter, the top four companies in 2018 had market share of 71%, up from 57% in 1987, according to Steve Kay, editor of the trade publication Cattle Buyers Weekly. The total number of livestock slaughtering plants has plummeted about 70% since 1967, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Given the high concentration of meat and poultry processors in a relatively small number of large facilities, closure of any of these plants could disrupt our food supply and detrimentally impact our hardworking farmers and ranchers," the White House statement said. Modern scrutiny of the industry isn't new. During the Clinton administration, the same concerns about concentration and prices paid to ranchers sparked a Justice Department inquiry. Department officials visited rural areas to get the message out that they were looking for evidence of anticompetitive conduct, said David Turetsky, who was a deputy in the antitrust division at the time. Ultimately, they didn't find enough to bring a case. "In industries that are as highly concentrated at this one, it's not surprising at all to see concerns," said Turetsky, now at the University at Albany. Cattle Pricing It's not clear what conduct the Justice Department is focused on now in the beef investigation. A class-action lawsuit brought by R-CALF and the National Farmers Union last year accuses the companies of colluding to reduce the volume of cattle purchased for slaughter in order to drive down prices. Ranchers' woes grew more acute in the pandemic as slaughter plants shuttered. They grappled with low prices for cattle, while meat prices paid by consumers at the supermarket spiked. Wholesale beef more than doubled from early April to mid-May. Prices have now quickly come back down from the peak, but are still about 10% higher since the start of the year even as shutdowns for restaurants meant a loss of demand. Meanwhile, most-active cattle futures traded in Chicago have lost 24% in 2020. Data tracking meatpacker margins soared. A similar situation happened last year when a major Tyson plant in Kansas saw a production stoppage after a fire. Still, margins don't tell the whole story, said Jayson Lusk, head of the department of agricultural economics at Purdue University. They are a simple calculation of the spread between animal costs and meat prices and don't necessarily reflect actual company profits. "In one case, a plant burned down. In the other case, it's workers getting sick. Packers, at least, are not completely in control," Lusk said. "What happens in both of these cases is that it's quite clear that livestock producers are worse off. Whether the processors are worse off is hard to tell -- we can't see their costs." Most cattle are sold to meatpackers through longer-term contracts, rather than on the spot market. Ranchers complain that this structure reduces transparency and gives the packing companies a mechanism to pressure prices. That's because the cash market helps to underpin terms in the contracts. So by reducing their purchases on the spot market, where trading is thin, the companies can drive down the price paid through contracts, according to the class-action complaint. Spot Market Legislation introduced last month by a bipartisan group of senators from rural states would require meatpackers to buy a minimum of half their weekly volume on the spot market. The flip-side of consolidation in the market is larger, more efficient facilities that operate with lower costs, which in turn means cheaper prices for consumers, said Glynn Tonsor, a professor in the department of agricultural economics at Kansas State University. Those efficiencies also benefit ranchers who sell to the plants, Tonsor said. With lower costs, the meatpackers can pay more for cattle than they would otherwise. But the bargaining position of ranchers depends on the supply of cattle relative to processing capacity. When supply is low, they're in a better position than when it's high, he said. Tonsor said it's a mistake to assume that a less concentrated market with more competitors would necessarily mean a more resilient food-supply network in the U.S. that is less prone to bottlenecks caused by plant shutdowns. "What we know with certainty is the efficiencies we have due to economies of scale would be gone," he said. Yet antitrust enforcement today is undergoing a rethink. Economists and lawyers are questioning whether there's been too much focus on how mergers affect prices paid by consumers and not enough on prices paid to sellers. The buying power of companies is rightly getting more attention today, and the Justice Department should be scrutinizing the issue in the meatpacking industry, said Michael Kades, the director of markets and competition policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. "Agriculture in general is an area where there is lot of market power to the detriment of consumers on one side and small producers and farmers on the other," he said. [GN] UNITED COLLECTION: Faces Flam FDCPA Class Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection Bureau, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Toby Flam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-02750 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. United Collections Bureau is a debt collection agency servicing companies in the government, finance, healthcare, student loan, utilities, and communication industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com UNITED PARCEL: Domingquez Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ANDREW DOMINGQUEZ Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, CO., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:18-cv-01162-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all current and former California-based non-exempt part- time/seasonal hourly employees who worked for the Defendant UNITED PARCEL SERVICE., CO.'s facilities located in Ontario, California in the PreLoad Sort from August 11, 2013 to the present"; 2. certifying subclasses: Meal Break Penalty Subclass: "all current and former California-based non-exempt part- time/seasonal hourly employees who worked for the Defendant UNITED PARCEL SERVICE., CO.'s facilities located in Ontario, California in the PreLoad Sort and who worked a shift in excess of 5 hours during the period from August 11, 2013 to the present"; Rest Period Penalty Subclass: "all current and former California-based non-exempt part- time/seasonal hourly employees who worked for the Defendant UNITED PARCEL SERVICE., CO.'s facilities located in Ontario, California in the PreLoad Sort who worked a shift in excess of 6 hours from August 11, 2013 to the present" Wage Statement Penalty Subclass: "all current and former California-based non-exempt part- time/seasonal hourly employees who worked for the Defendant UNITED PARCEL SERVICE., CO.'s facilities located in Ontario, California in the PreLoad Sort from August 11, 2013 to the present." United Parcel is a wholly owned subsidiary of United Parcel Service Inc.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Scott Russo, Esq. RUSSO & DUCKWORTH, LLP 2801 West Coast Hwy., Ste. 270 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 752-7106 Facsimile: (949) 752-0629 - and - Robert E. Bright, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT E. BRIGHT 2801 West Coast Hwy., Ste. 270 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 396-2406 Facsimile: (949) 534-0508 UNITED STATES OIL FUND: Lucas Alleges Securities Trade Deception ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT LUCAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OIL FUND, LP; UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUNDS LLC; JOHN P. LOVE; and STUART P. CRUMBAUGH, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04740 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased United States Oil Fund, LP (USO) securities during the period from March 19, 2020 to April 28, 2020, alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements to attract investors to the USO Fund. Despite the Defendants' knowledge about the known impacts and risks associated to the Fund due to the decline of oil demand as governments imposed lockdowns worldwide to prevent the spread of COVID-19 pandemic and the oil price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia in 2020, the Defendants disclosed the adverse facts and still convinced the investors that their investment strategy is feasible. The Defendants also conducted a massive offering of USO shares at artificially inflated prices. Although the offering increased the fees payable to the Defendants, it also exacerbated the undisclosed risks to the Fund by magnifying trading inefficiencies and causing USO to approach position and accountability limits as a result of the Fund's massive positions in the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures market. In the days that followed, USO Fund quickly deteriorated. Ultimately, the Fund suffered billions of dollars in losses and was forced to abandon its investment strategy. United States Oil Fund, LP is a commodity pool operator that provides investment exposure to oil markets. United States Commodity Funds LLC is a company that manages exchange-traded funds (ETFs), with principal place of business located in Oakland, California. It is the sponsor and general and managing partner for the United States Oil Fund, LP. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 674-4674 Facsimile: (312) 674-4676 E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP 39 Sintsink Drive West, 1st Floor Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone: (516) 883-1437 E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com UNITED STATES: Kluge Files Suit in U.S. Court of Federal Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the USA. The case is styled as JOHN C. KLUGE and SCOTT SCHWIEGER, on behalf of a putative class similarly situated v. USA, Case No. 1:20-cv-00738-RTH (Fed. Cl., June 19, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Civilian Pay-Other. The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Renne, Esq. RENNE LAW 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 110521 Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: (703) 869-0418 Email: jrenne@rennelaw.com UNIVERSAL STANDARD: Faces Crosson ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Standard Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Universal Standard Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02720 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Universal Standard is a New York-based fashion brand that focuses on modern, elevated essentials for women size 10-28.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com USA MEDICAL: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Medical and Surgical Supplies LLC. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. USA Medical and Surgical Supplies LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04782 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. USA Medical and Surgical Supplies is an online surgical supply store founded with the mission of procuring and distributing quality, brand name medical equipment and supplies at reasonable prices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com VALE: Settles Samarco Dam Disaster Class Action for $25 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Mining Journal reports that Vale said it had reached a US$25 million settlement in a New York class action regarding the 2015 Samarco dam disaster in Brazil. The company said after a hearing, the Southern District of New York granted final approval to the proposed settlement agreement concerning Samarco's Fundão dam class action, brought by holders of Vale's American Depositary Receipts under US federal securities laws. "The court will soon issue a judgment and order dismissing the case, which will make it no longer subject to appeals and thus, final and binding to the class members who joined the settlement," Vale said. BHP, Vale's 50% partner at Samarco where the 2015 dam burst killed 19 people and caused what had been described as Brazil's worst environmental disaster, had settled a US class action with ADR investors for $50 million in 2018 with no admission of liability. Separately, Vale said a Brazil court had reversed an earlier decision requiring the miner provide a BRL7.9 billion (US$1.5 billion) guarantee for a possible fine in relation to the Brumadinho dam disaster. Minas Gerais Public Prosecutor (MPMG) had sought the guarantee, which it said represented the highest amount ever recognised in a lawsuit of this nature in Brazil, in relation to the January 2019 dam collapse which killed 270 people and was "one of the greatest socio-environmental disasters in the history of Minas Gerais and Brazil". "The court considered that there is no evidence of any risk that Vale would not comply with a future decision on the lawsuit," Vale said. "The suspension stands until a new decision to be made by the judge Belizario de Lacerda, that may confirm or modify the current decision." The company is involved in other legal action related to the dam collapse. [GN] VALLEY FORGE: Denies Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, Hong Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAE Y. HONG, DDS, PS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00891-TLF (W.D. Wash., June 9, 2020), seeks to ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated policyholders of the Defendant receive the insurance benefits to which they are entitled and for which they paid. On March 19, 2020, Governor Jay Inslee issued Proclamation 20-24, "Restrictions on Non-Urgent Medical Procedures" relating to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The Plaintiff contends that that the Defendant promises to pay for "direct physical loss of or damage to" to covered property. The Plaintiff's Policy includes coverage for risks of both damage to and loss of covered property. The Plaintiff's property cannot be used for its intended purposes. As a result, the Plaintiff has experienced and will experience loss covered by the Valley Forge policy or policies, according to the complaint. After Plaintiff's business was shut down in March 2020, the Plaintiff sought coverage for business loss. By letter dated April 20, 2020, Valley Forge denied coverage for the loss. The Plaintiff owns and operates an oral and maxillofacial surgical dental business located at 4202 10th 26 Street SE, in Puyallup, Washington. The Defendant is an insurance carrier duly incorporated in the State of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Williams Derry, Esq. Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Ian S. Birk, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Irene M. Hecht, Esq. Maureen Falecki, Esq. Nathan Nanfelt, Esq. Alison Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: awilliam-derry@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com ibirk@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com ihecht@kellerrohrback.com mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com nnanfelt@kellerrrohrback.com achase@kellerrohrback.com VARSITY BRANDS: Monopolizes All-Star Markets, Fusion Elite Says --------------------------------------------------------------- FUSION ELITE ALL STARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VARSITY BRANDS, LLC; VARSITY SPIRIT, LLC; VARSITY SPIRIT FASHION & SUPPLIES, LLC; and U.S. ALL STAR FEDERATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-03521 (N.D. Cal., May 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize in violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly-situated, alleges that the Defendants conspired to engage in an exclusionary scheme to maintain and enhance monopoly power in the All-Star Competition Market and All-Star Apparel Market, which led the Plaintiff and Class members to pay artificially inflated prices directly to Varsity for All-Star Competitions and All-Star Apparel due to reduced output, supracompetitive prices, and reduced choice in both relevant markets. Varsity imposes its most exclusionary contracts, called Network Agreements, on the most prestigious All-Star Gyms whose attendance is critical to putting on successful All-Star Events and a key distribution channel for All-Star Apparel. Under these Network Agreements, All-Star Gyms are required to commit to near exclusive attendance at All-Star Competitions and completely exclusive patronage by the Gyms and their team members of All-Star Apparel. Varsity's exclusionary scheme has successfully impaired and foreclosed a substantial share of each of the relevant markets from competitors. The scheme has also created significant entry barriers for would be competitors in the relevant markets. As a direct and proximate result, Varsity collectively controls approximately 90% of the All-Star Competition Market and 80% of All-Star Apparel Market in the United States. Varsity Brands, LLC is a sports equipment company with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee. Varsity Spirit, LLC is an American organization that sells cheerleading, dance team and band apparel with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee. Varsity Spirit Fashion & Supplies, LLC is a manufacturer of cheerleading and dancewear with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee. U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. is a Tennessee-based non-profit organization for all star cheerleading and dance in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Galdston, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 E-mail: bgaldston@bm.net - and – H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Esq. Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Mark Suter, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: hlmontague@bm.net ecramer@bm.net msuter@bm.net - and – Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Katherine Van Dyck, Esq. Victoria Sims, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com kvandyc@cuneolaw.com vicky@cuneolaw.com - and – Benjamin D. Elga, Esq. JUSTICE CATALYST LAW, INC. 81 Prospect Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (518) 732-6703 E-mail: belga@justicecatalyst.org - and – Brian Shearer, Esq. Craig L. Briskin, Esq. JUSTICE CATALYST LAW, INC. 718 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (518) 732-6703 E-mail: brianshearer@justicecatalyst.org cbriskin@justicecatalyst.org VIMEO INC: Seeks Seventh Cir. Review of Order in Acaley BIPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Vimeo, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 1, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled BRADLEY ACALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VIMEO, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07164, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was removed from the Circuit Court of Illinois for Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Oct 31, 2019. Bradley Acaley has sued Vimeo, Inc., alleging that a mobile application Vimeo owns and operates violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/15, by using face-geometry scan technology. Vimeo has filed a motion asking the Court to stay the lawsuit and compel individual arbitration of Acaley's claim. The Court denies Vimeo's motion. The appellate case is captioned as BRADLEY ACALEY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. VIMEO, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 20-2047, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the transcript information sheet of Vimeo, Inc. is due on July 2, 2020.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee BRADLEY ACALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Myles P. McGuire, Esq. Brendan James Duffner, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. Timothy Patrick Kingsbury, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com bduffner@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com tkingsbury@mcgpc.com - and - Bradley Keith King, Esq. Henry J Kelston, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024-3102 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Frank S Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com Defendant-Appellant Vimeo, Inc., is represented by: Joel Griswold, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 200 S. Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 649-4088 E-mail: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com - and - Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com - and - Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com VINEYARD VINES: Cohen Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Tina Cohen filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in her lawsuit entitled Tina Cohen v. Vineyard Vines Retail, LLC, Case No. 9:19-cv-80912-WPD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, together with other relief for violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Vineyard Vines is an American clothing and accessory retailer, selling ties, hats, belts, shirts, shorts, swimwear, bags for men, women and children. On March 13, 2019, Ms. Cohen made a purchase from the Vineyard Vines store, located in the Boca Town Center Mall, in Boca Raton using her personal American Express credit card and was subsequently provided an electronically printed receipt, which revealed the expiration date of her credit card and her full name, thus exposing her to identity theft. The appellate case is captioned as Tina Cohen v. Vineyard Vines Retail, LLC, Case No. 20-10080, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TINA COHEN, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, is represented by: Jeremy Adam Cohen, Esq. CW LAW GROUP, PC 188 Oaks Rd. Framingham, MA 01702 Telephone: (508) 309-4880 E-mail: Jeremy@cwlawgrouppc.com - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, PA 3800 S Ocean Dr., Ste. 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com Defendant-Appellee VINEYARD VINES RETAIL, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company, d.b.a. Vineyard Vines, is represented by: Clay Matthew Carlton, Esq. Sarah Jayne Cohen, Esq. Brian Ercole, Esq. Martha Anne Leibell, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 200 S Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 5300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 415-3447 E-mail: clay.carlton@morganlewis.com sarah.cohen@morganlewis.com brian.ercole@morganlewis.com martha.leibell@morganlewis.com VNC INC: Faces Drayton NJCFA Suit Over Charges on Bought Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIER INDIA DRAYTON v. VNC, INC.; WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS, Case No. ESX-L-003892-20 (N.J. Super., Essex Cty., June 9, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf and in a representative capacity on behalf of a class composed of all persons, who, during the class period, purchased a motor vehicle from Defendant and whose Purchase Agreement included: -- no notice as required by New Jersey Administrative Code; -- no separate itemization of the services provided in connection with the documentary fee charged; -- charging $395 (or similar price) for unitemized documentary charges; -- charging an unitemized fee of $43.50 (or another amount) in excess of the actual DMV title and registration fees charged in connection with the transaction; and -- charging $895 or any other price for an unitemized service contract. The Plaintiff further alleges that she and the class members have unknowingly paid and/or contracted for unlawful charges under the Consumer Fraud Act. VNC is a used car dealer. Westlake specializes in prime to sub-prime automotive financing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karri Lueddeke, Esq. LUEDDEKE LAW FIRM 215 Morris Avenue Spring Lake, NJ 07762 Telephone: (732) 449-2884 WATERLOO REGIONAL: Ont. App. Ct. Upholds Ruling in Policewomen Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Palayew, Esq. -- DPalayew@blg.com -- Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that the Ontario Court of Appeal in Rivers v. Waterloo Regional Police Services Board has upheld the Superior Court of Justice's determination that it was without jurisdiction to hear a proposed class action on behalf of current and former female officers with the Waterloo Regional Police Service against the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board and the Waterloo Regional Police Association. The claim alleged systemic gender based discrimination, Charter breaches, and sexual harassment by male members of the Service, over a 30-year period. The Superior Court followed prior decisions in confirming that the putative class members were bound by their respective collective bargaining agreements, which provided for binding arbitration, as codified under the Police Services Act. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) Class Period: February 2, 2018 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 June 14 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. -- 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 [GN] WESCO INSURANCE: Daij, Inc. Seeks Pay for COVID-Related Losses -------------------------------------------------------------- DAIJ, INC., d/b/a GENADEEN CATERERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY and AMTRUST FINANCIAL, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02739 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of their contractual obligation under common all-risk commercial property insurance policies. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated business entities and individuals who purchased insurance policy from the Defendants, alleges that the Defendants are denying their obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical loss and damage to the insured property from measures put in place by the civil authorities to stop the spread of COVID-19 among the population. The insurance policies Defendants issued to the Plaintiff and the Class members are all risk commercial property polices which cover loss or damage to the covered premises resulting from all risks other than those expressly excluded. The policy does not contain any reference to pandemic or exclusions for pandemics. The exclusion of loss due to virus or bacteria contained in the Form CP 01 78 08 08 is not applicable because the Plaintiff's and other Class members' losses were not caused by any of the actions set forth in the endorsement, and/or because other provisions make clear such exclusion is not applicable to certain losses, including food contamination losses. Rather, the efficient proximate cause of their losses, were the Closure Orders. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment under Business Income, Civil Authority, and Extra Expense Coverage. DAIJ, Inc., d/b/a Genadeen Caterers, is an event planning and catering service provider with its principal place of business in Cedarhurst, New York. Wesco Insurance Company is an insurance company, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. AmTrust Financial is a global insurance company, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com - and – Paul J. Geller, Esq. Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com - 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 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com - and – Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. SEEGER WEISS 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com sweiss@seegerweiss.com WEST MARINE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Adams Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant West Marine Products, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Adrianne Adams v. West Marine Products, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01037-VC, in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was originally filed on January 22, 2019, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo (assigned Case No. 19CIV00436). The case was later removed to the District Court. The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of failing to pay overtime compensation, provide meal periods, authorize and permit rest periods, pay minimum wage, timely pay wages, provide accurate wage statements, and maintain accurate payroll records. West Marine operates as a specialty retailer of boating supplies, gear, apparel, footwear, and other water life-related products. The appellate case is captioned as Adrianne Adams v. West Marine Products, Inc., Case No. 20-15444, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ADRIANNE ADAMS, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and as a private attorney general, is represented by: Heather Marie Davis, Esq. Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 E-mail: heather@protectionlawgroup.com amir@protectionlawgroup.com Defendant-Appellant WEST MARINE PRODUCTS, INC., a California corporation, is represented by: Ashley Farrell Pickett, Esq. Mark D. Kemple, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (949) 702-8117 E-mail: farrellpicketta@gtlaw.com kemplem@gtlaw.com WESTERN DENTAL: Settlement in Bulette Suit Gets Prelim. Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RACHEL BULETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES INC., et. al, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00612-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. Bulette, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, and Defendants Western Dental and RevSpring, Inc. have agreed to settle the Action pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in an executed Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement dated as of March 11, 2020. The Court provisionally certified the following Settlement Class: all regular users or subscribers to numbers assigned to wireless carriers to which a text message was attempted using RevSpring's TalkSoft platform, after RevSpring received a text message containing the word "stop" from such number in response to a Western Dental text message, within four years of Feb. 4, 2019. The Court appointed Plaintiff Bulette as the Class Representative, and the following people and firms as Class Counsel: Avi R. Kaufman and Rachel E. Kaufman of Kaufman P.A. and Stefan Coleman of Law Offices of Stefan Coleman P.A. The Court also approved the form and content of the Claim Form, Long-Form Notice, and Summary Notice. Epiq has been appointed as Settlement Administrator. All costs of administration will be paid from the Settlement Fund as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681b(a)(1), the Administrator is permitted to obtain information governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act for the sole purpose and to the extent necessary of locating current addresses of Settlement Class Members in order to fulfill the Notice obligations under this Order. The Settlement Administrator will implement the Notice Plan, as set forth in the Settlement, and the Claims Process using the Claim Form and Notices substantially in the forms attached as Exhibits A through C to the Settlement and approved by this Preliminary Approval Order. Notice will be provided to the members of the Settlement Class pursuant to the Notice Plan, as specified in the Settlement and approved by the Preliminary Approval Order. A Final Approval Hearing will be held before the Court on July 17, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. Any Settlement Class member may object to the Settlement no later than June 12, 2020. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 13, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/MnvR3A from Leagle.com. Rachel Bulette, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi Kaufman -- kaufman@kaufmanpa.com -- Kaufman P.A., pro hac vice, Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Kaufman P.A., Stefan Louis Coleman -- law@stefancoleman.com -- Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, LLC, pro hac vice & David S. Ratner -- david@davidratnerlawfirm.com -- David Ratner Law Firm LLP. Western Dental Services, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Hunter Randolph Eley -- heley@dollamir.com -- Doll Amir & Eley LLP & Connie Y. Tcheng -- ctcheng@dollamir.com -- Doll Amir & Eley LLP. RevSpring, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric J. Troutman, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Emily Lee Wallerstein, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP & Jason M. Ingber -- jason.ingber@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP. United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Anjali Motgi, United States Department of Justice Civil Division. WILD THINGS: Bunting Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wild Things Snacks, Inc. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Wild Things Snacks, Inc., doing business as: Skinnydipped, Case No. 1:20-cv-02719 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Skinny Dipped produces thinly dipped chocolate-covered almonds. Skinny Dipped is a women-owned company offering several chocolate-covered-almond flavor options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com WILHELMINA MODELS: Shanklin Appeals N.Y. Ct. Order in Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Alex Shanklin, Louisa Raske, Marcelle Almonte, Grecia Palomares, Carina Vretman, Michelle Griffin Trotter, and Vanessa Perron filed an appeal from the Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, issued on May 8, 2020, in the matter styled ALEX SHANKLIN, LOUISA RASKE, MELISSA BAKER, ELENI TZIMAS, MARCELLE ALMONTE, GRECIA PALOMARES, CARINA VRETMAN, MICHELLE GRIFFIN TROTTER, VANESSA PERRON, Individually and as Class Representatives v. WILHELMINA MODELS, INC., WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL LTD., ELITE MODEL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, CLICK MODEL MANAGEMENT, INC., MC2 MODEL AND TALENT MIAMI LLC, MC2 MODELS MANAGEMENT LLC, NEXT MANAGEMENT, LLC, MAJOR MODEL MANAGEMENT INC., Case No. 653702/2013. The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiffs-Appellants. The Plaintiffs are or were fashion, models who allege they worked as employees at one or more of the defendant modeling agencies but were mischaracterized as independent contractors in violation of the New York Labor Law and had deductions taken from their paychecks illegally. They also allege they were deprived of compensation owed for use or re-use of their image in breach of individual form contracts they entered into with the Agencies. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares and Michelle Griffin Trotter (the "Shanklin Litigation"), in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. The appellate case is captioned as ALEX SHANKLIN, LOUISA RASKE, MELISSA BAKER, ELENI TZIMAS, MARCELLE ALMONTE, GRECIA PALOMARES, CARINA VRETMAN, MICHELLE GRIFFIN TROTTER, and VANESSA PERRON -against- WILHELMINA MODELS, INC., WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL LTD., ELITE MODEL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, CLICK MODEL MANAGEMENT, INC., MC2 MODEL AND TALENT MIAMI LLC, MC2 MODELS MANAGEMENT LLC, NEXT MANAGEMENT, LLC, and MAJOR MODEL MANAGEMENT INC., Case No. 2020-02730, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: First Judicial Department.[BN] Plaintiffs ALEX SHANKLIN, LOUISA RASKE, MELISSA BAKER, ELENI TZIMAS, MARCELLE ALMONTE, GRECIA PALOMARES, CARINA VRETMAN, MICHELLE GRIFFIN TROTTER, and VANESSA PERRON are represented by: Christopher D. Kercher, Esq. Kimberly E. Carson, Esq. Matthew Fox, Esq. Colin Steele, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010-1601 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 E-mail: christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com kimberlycarson@quinnemanuel.com matthewfox@quinnemanuel.com colinsteele@quinnemanuel.com - and - Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. Diane Cafferata, Esq. Danielle Shrader-Frechette, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 E-mail: adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com dianecafferata@quinnemanuel.com daniellefrechette@quinnemanuel.com WILLIAM J GERTZ: Jimenez Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to D. Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA FERNANDEZ JIMENEZ, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated v. WILLIAM J. GERTZ (Filed June 2, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of Massachusetts, County of Middlesex, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 10, 2020. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-11110 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Gertz failed to pay her and other au pairs the minimum wage and overtime wages in violation of Massachusetts General Laws.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq. Josh Gardner, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C. One State Street, Fourth Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: 617-390-7570 E-mail: nick@gardnerrosenberg.com josh@gardnerrosenberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick M. Curran, Jr., Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Boston Place, Suite 3500 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 994-5700 Facsimile: (617) 994-5701 E-mail: patrick.curran@ogletree.com WINRED TECHNICAL: Faces Whittaker Suit Over Unsolicited Texts ------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Whittaker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WinRed Technical Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and National Republican Senatorial Committee, a District of Columbia non-profit organization, Case No. 3:20-cv-08150-JJT (D. Ariz., June 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to stop their practices of placing text message calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express consent. The Defendants conducted (and continue to conduct) a wide scale telemarking campaign that features unsolicited autodialed text message calls to consumers' cellular telephone all without any prior express written consent to make the texts at issued, according to the complaint. In making the autodialed text message calls at issue in this Complaint, the Defendants and/or their agents utilized an ATDS. In doing so, the Defendant no only invaded the personal privacy of the Plaintiff, but al intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA. The Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of Cottonwood, Yavapai County, Arizona. WinRed is a fundraising technology service that boasts of providing the number one online fundraising platform for the Republican Party and conservative groups.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Penny L. Koepke, Esq. MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C. 4854 E. Baseline Road, Suite 104 Mesa, AZ 85206 Phone: (480) 833-1001 Email: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz - and - Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Phone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com XPRESSION OF AWARENESS: Dhesi Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DR. SARBJIT DHESI and DR. LONNA DENNY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. XPRESSION OF AWARENESS, INC., d/b/a "RETHINK CBD," a/k/a "CBD RETHINK," LOUIS WING, YESSENIA GARCIA, and HAMID MCHATET, Case No. 4:19-cv-04210-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons and entities whose name or fax number appears in column A or B respectively of the "Chiropractor_Email_List" tab of the "Chiropractor_Fax_6- 20-2019.xlsx" file produced by the Defendant Xpression of Awareness, Inc. in this litigation on January 18, 2020"; 2. appointing themselves representatives of the class; and 3. appointing their undersigned counsel as class counsel.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon B. Fougner, Esq. 600 California Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 577-5829 Facsimile: (206) 338-0783 E-mail: jon@fougnerlaw.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Andrew W. Heidarpour, Esq. HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PLLC 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 190-318 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 234-2727 E-mail: aheidarpour@hlfirm.com [*] 428 New Securities Class Actions Filed in 2019, Report Shows ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jef Feeley and Katherine Chiglinsky, writing for Insurance Journal, report that when Elon Musk said in April he was dropping the insurance policy that protects Tesla Inc.'s board from shareholder lawsuits, it got Skip McBride's attention. To McBride, who used to manage law firm Bracewell LLP's malpractice exposure, Musk's decision to insure Tesla's directors out of his own pocket was a first -- and a risky move. But it was also the latest sign that companies are hunting for creative workarounds as rates for directors-and-officers insurance skyrocket amid a surge in lawsuits by plaintiffs seeking to sue as a group. That litigation is now driven by a rash of claims that companies bungled the response to the coronavirus outbreak and the economic lockdown that followed. Prices for D&O coverage are up by almost half and, by one reckoning, are headed for a triple-digit increase. The galloping rates are "clearly related to litigation over the Covid-19 outbreak and a several-year increase in the number of securities cases against directors and boards," said McBride, who is now of counsel at the Lanier Law Firm and sits on five boards himself. "I'm not about to serve on a board where I have to rely on a single individual's wealth to guarantee I have directors-and-officers coverage," he added. "There's just too many unexpected things that can happen." Tesla didn't respond to emails seeking comment on Musk's D&O arrangement. Tesla's board may be expensive to insure, given Musk's Twitter missteps and run-ins with regulators, and his new insurance setup creates the potential for conflicts of interest. But the burgeoning litigation and higher rates are widespread, and companies are pressing insurance brokers for solutions. More corporations are inquiring about covering risks to the board by using a "captive insurer," an entity funded solely by the company and dedicated to indemnifying it against risk, according to Sarah Downey, a D&O specialist at Marsh & McLennan Cos.' insurance brokerage. She declined to cite examples. Since February, investors have sued more than a dozen boards of companies ranging from cruise lines to drug makers chasing a coronavirus vaccine, alleging they were asleep at the switch as the crisis decimated their businesses, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. "I think the run to the courthouse has really only just started," Downey said. Investors in Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. sued company directors in March over alleged efforts to downplay the risk the virus posed to customers. Bookers were instructed to tell callers the pathogen "can only survive in cold temperatures," according to court filings. Norwegian now faces other securities cases targeting directors over its handling of the virus. Its stock is down 65% for the year. Norwegian didn't return a call and emails seeking comment. Plaintiffs filed 428 new securities cases seeking class action status in federal and state courts last year, the most on record and nearly double the average from 1997 to 2018, according to a Cornerstone Research report. Evan Greenberg, chief executive officer of insurance giant Chubb Ltd., has repeatedly addressed the wave of suits in his annual letter. This year he called "excessive litigation" a "tax on society and business." Whether the lawsuits spurred by the pandemic will succeed remains to be seen. A volatile stock market generally translates into more securities class actions, but the breadth of the market's decline might make it harder to prove it was a company's response to the virus that caused its travails, Travelers Cos. CEO Alan Schnitzer said in April. Rates Rising In the meantime, rates on D&O policies in the U.S. rose 44% in the first quarter from a year earlier, with 95% of clients experiencing an increase, according to a report by Marsh. AM Best said that the pandemic could push those increases to three digits. Covid-19 "will ensure that we will see these kinds of increases for the foreseeable future," said Ty Childress, an insurance lawyer at Jones Day. Tesla officials decided not to renew the D&O coverage "due to disproportionately high premiums quoted by insurance companies," and Musk personally agreed to "provide coverage equivalent to such a policy for a one-year-period," according to an April securities filing. Tesla said the board doesn't expect Musk's arrangement to threaten the independence of its other members, because the new structure is governed by a binding agreement with Tesla and is intended to replace an ordinary insurance policy. Not everyone sees it that way. Hedge fund manager David Einhorn, who has long bet against Tesla shares, said last month the structure creates an "obvious conflict of interest" that hinders the board's ability to "curtail Musk's behavior." The setup is "dependent on his financial ability to honor his commitment," Kevin LaCroix, a liability insurance expert at RT ProExec, wrote in his D&O Diary blog in April. He warned that if the economy takes another dive, the directors' "need for coverage could arise in a set of circumstances that could itself undermine Musk's ability to honor his commitment." It's a risky board to sit on. In January, Tesla's insurer paid out $60 million to settle investor claims that directors allowed Musk to dupe the company into overpaying for solar panel maker Solar City. The accord covered all the directors except Musk; his trial is set for July. Musk faces other litigation over controversial tweets about taking Tesla private and rosy predictions about initial production rates for the Model 3 sedan. Captive Alternative Captive insurers have their uses, said the Lanier Law Firm's McBride. Johnson & Johnson, for example, set up Middlesex Assurance Co. in 1970 to address a profusion of exposure, according to securities filings. Over the years, Middlesex has helped cover litigation costs tied to liabilities including those from the company's talc-based baby powder, which has been blamed for causing cancer. J &J took the talc-based version of the powder off the market last month. Kim Montagnino, a J&J spokeswoman, declined to comment on whether J&J has used Middlesex to self-insure its coverage for the company's directors, who include former Citigroup Inc. chairman and CEO Charles Prince and former Aetna Inc. chairman and CEO Ronald Williams. Captive insurance is generally trickier with D&O coverage because of potential conflicts of interest, said Marsh's Downey. The inquiries she's received haven't necessarily translated into action, she said. Musk may be at the leading edge here, as he is in electric cars and space travel, but don't expect a "stampede," said McBride, whose five boards include Blue Bell Creameries. "Directors are always going to want to have another pocket of money they can rely on," he said, "in case their interests and those of the company diverge." And if he were invited to join Tesla's board? First he'd need to cut his own deal with Musk. "I'm crafting that agreement, and you can be sure it will be airtight," he said. "Mr. Musk would have no out when it came to my coverage." [GN] [*] Borden Ladner Attorneys Discuss Climate Change Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Matti Lemmens, Esq. -- MLemmens@blg.com -- Tiffany Bennett, Esq. -- tibennett@blg.com -- Gabrielle Kramer, Esq. -- GKramer@blg.com -- and Rick Williams, Esq., of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in recent years, environmental considerations have become a key issue in corporate, political and social decision-making. As Canada has recognized the urgency and public interest in mitigating the impacts of climate change, it is unsurprising that the issue of climate change now has growing prominence in the Canadian legal sphere. Climate change litigation has traditionally focused on regulatory approvals for proposed projects and ongoing reporting requirements to manage site-specific and aggregate carbon emissions. However, a new wave of climate change litigation has arrived in Canada: climate change class actions. Recent climate change class actions, including examples from Canada, the United States and Europe, demonstrate issues that may arise in asserting or resisting these actions. Such issues have implications for industries, which could potentially be influenced by the carbon emissions data collected during the current novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The recently announced Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility also signals that the issue of climate change remains a relevant consideration as Canada looks to re-open its economy. Although the oil and gas industry must now address immediate issues relating to business continuity, it should continue to be live to the impact current business operations and conduct may have on potential climate change litigation and regulatory compliance. In particular, oil and gas companies should consider the connection between their associated emissions and the evidentiary record and legal tests for climate change class actions. Disclosure requirements for the large employer emergency financing facility On May 11, 2020, the Federal Government introduced the Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility (LEEFF), to provide bridge funding for Canada's largest employers. Employers with annual revenues of at least $300 million, and whose credit needs are not being met by conventional financing, may be eligible. Although further details of the program are yet to be announced, the Federal Government has expressly included climate change considerations in the program. Recipients under LEEFF would be required to publish annual climate-related disclosure reports in accordance with the recommendations of Financial Stability Board's Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. These disclosure obligations are in addition to public companies' existing disclosure obligations under securities legislation. In the context of the increased risk of climate change litigation, data collected in the course of regulatory compliance and other policy requirements will almost certainly shape potential future litigation. Key examples of climate change class actions There are two broad categories for climate change class actions: lawsuits against the government and lawsuits against private entities. Class actions seeking recovery for climate change differ and present new issues for all stakeholders. Urgenda Foundation v The State of the Netherlands The District Court of The Hague's 2015 decision in Urgenda Foundation v the State of the Netherlands marked the first time a court required a government to meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Here, the District Court agreed with Urgenda Foundation, a Dutch environmental organization, and found that the State breached its duty of care under Dutch domestic law to protect its citizens from the imminent hazard of climate change. The Dutch government was ordered to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions to 25 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020. This decision was upheld by The Hague Court of Appeal, which noted that the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions for global warming were well known and that the government's delay in taking action would result in requiring more significant and ambitious measures later. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld the 25 per cent reduction target set out by the lower courts and dismissed the Dutch government's appeal, as outlined here. The Supreme Court found that the Dutch government had an obligation to protect its citizens' human rights, which were threatened by the risk of climate change, and that "[e]ach country is thus responsible for its own share". Juliana v United States of America The 2016 District Court of Oregon decision in Juliana v the United States of America introduced climate change class actions to North America. That litigation was brought by 21 youth plaintiffs, Earth Guardians and "future generations" represented by climatologist James Hansen, as against the government of the United States of America. The plaintiffs argued that U.S. government's actions have caused climate change and violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, property and public trust resources. In January 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a split decision that dismissed the case for lack of standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. The majority for the Ninth Circuit accepted there was "copious expert evidence" to establish the harm that would be caused by unchecked fossil fuel use and that the record reflected the federal government was aware of the risks of increased greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiffs' claims were not redressable by the constitutional powers of the Court and must be addressed by the executive and legislative branches of government. The plaintiffs have petitioned for a rehearing of this decision. ENvironnement JEUnesse v Attorney General of Canada Climate change class actions also recently came to Canada. In November 2018, ENvironnement JEUnesse (ENJEU), a Montreal-based non-profit organization, commenced a class action lawsuit against the government on behalf of all Quebec residents ages 35 or younger. Like Urgenda Foundation, ENJEU argued the federal government has set insufficient targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as failing to meet its actual targets. ENJEU argued this constitutes a breach of sections 7 (life, liberty and security of person) and 15 (the right to equality) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Quebec Superior Court refused to certify the proposed class action. Although the Court found the relevant issues engaged rights protected by the Canadian Charter and the Quebec Charter and were justiciable, it held that class action was not the appropriate vehicle. The Court was concerned the determination of the potential class members and, in particular, the proposed age limit of 35 for potential class members, was arbitrary. ENJEU indicated it would appeal this decision. Proposed lawsuit by municipalities In January 2019, the City Council of Victoria voted to endorse a resolution to support a class action lawsuit on behalf of local governments in the Province of British Columbia against "major fossil fuel corporations" to recover costs incurred due to climate change. No action has been commenced to date. Victoria's proposal appears to follow the example set out by the City of New York in City of New York v BP PLC et al, wherein New York filed an action against a number of energy companies to seek, among other things, recovery for past and future costs incurred to protect the city's infrastructure and property from the impacts of climate change. However, that action was dismissed by the District Court of New York, which held that "[g]lobal warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government". The City of New York has appealed this decision and oral arguments were heard in November 2019. Legal issues and considerations If Canada follows the trend set out in the United States, we can expect to see new climate change cases by way of tort actions and individual Charter actions. Case examples show the trend toward an increasing number of plaintiffs in climate change litigation, signalling the move to class actions as the preferred approach. In Canada, class actions certainly appear to be the likely vehicle for future climate change litigation. In anticipation of the expanding scope of climate change litigation from more traditional environmental litigation or regulatory administrative review, industry stakeholders and the government should carefully consider the increasing litigation risk associated with ongoing operations and capital projects in the energy industry. As the existing cases continue to move forward and new cases are commenced, there will be greater clarity to the Canadian courts' approach to climate change class action. For now, we anticipate the following list of potential issues and considerations to arise in this type of litigation: -- Whether the court can exercise its judicial authority to adjudicate the case and whether plaintiffs have standing; -- The identification of a proposed class and proposed common issues are critical to the likelihood of certifying a climate change lawsuit as a class action; -- The scope of parties to which a duty is owed in negligence may be limited or expanded by climate change actions; -- The government's adoption of certain standards may provide evidence for determining whether the government's actions accord with what it has previously endorsed as the appropriate thresholds for combating climate change; and -- Potential evidence may include not only business documents, but also scientific studies and government and non- government reports, as well as climate change-related data that have been collected and reported in satisfaction of disclosure requirements and other program eligibility requirements Potential implications for the oil and gas industry The increasing risk of litigation relating to climate change issues means that oil and gas stakeholders should more carefully consider its ongoing operations, proposed capital projects and business policies. The evolving circumstances relating to the COVID-19 outbreak have also introduced new considerations when assessing litigation risk. Reported greenhouse gas emissions have seen a significant decrease following the implementation of global countermeasures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Travel restrictions and work from home policies imposed in response to COVID-19 may be a significant factor in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Corporations that may be subject to potential climate change litigation should note that its business documents and reports created in the course of its business may be produced in later litigation. Notably, data on greenhouse gas emissions created at this time may serve as evidence in support of future climate change litigation in establishing causation between reduced industry activity and greenhouse gas emissions. As different jurisdictions prepare to re-open their economies, companies should carefully review their own greenhouse gas emissions data and such data available generally, from the commencement of restrictions imposed by their respective government in comparison to prior to those restrictions, to assess risks for future litigation. The climate-related disclosure obligations in economic programs relating to COVID-19 confirm the Federal Government will continue to be guided in part by climate change considerations. Emissions data from the COVID-19 pandemic may well inform the government's future policy decisions. A public company may also consider disclosing the potential litigation risk and significant changes in the reported emissions as part of its public disclosure obligations. Directors and officers should also be aware of their corresponding exposure in relation to a company's climate change-related liability. As part of the oil and gas industry's preparation for the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and current oil glut, it should consider potential climate change litigation as part of its risk profile. Oil and gas companies should manage their business operations with these long-term climate change litigation impacts in mind. [GN] [*] Capital Watch Looks Into Investor Suits v. Asian Cos. in U.S. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anna Vodopyanova, writing for Capital Watch, reports in part two of its 2019 Chinese IPO review, it looks at at the troubles and achievements of the companies that increasingly meet distrust among U.S. investors. It continues looking at Asia-based companies that chose Wall Street as their listing destination of choice. In its report, it shine a spotlight on the IPOs of the first half of 2019. Last year was rough, marked by the Trump administration's tariff and tech wars, tightened listing rules, the slowdown in China's economy, and protests that shook up Hong Kong. We are looking at the companies' position in the market, major developments and troubles since going public, and how they had fared during the Covid-19 outbreak. Companies by ticker symbol in this report: GSX, LK, JFIN, YJ, SY, RUHN, PUYI, TIGR, and FUTU, starting from the most recent listing. The vast majority of these stocks are currently trading below IPO level. June 6: GSX Techedu Inc. (NYSE: GSX) This company sees no rest from short-seller bullying and lawsuits. GSX Techedu has consistently delivered skyrocketing revenue results since its IPO in early June 2019. However, certain short-seller firms claim those figures are significantly overstated. GSX, an afterschool tutoring provider for K-12, raised $207.9 million in its IPO, priced at $10.50 per ADS. The deal was backed by some big banks including Credit Suisse, which these days are taking blows from multiple angles. The stock in GSX has enjoyed an uptrend in line with its financials and rose especially -- as high as $46.40 -- during the Covid-19 outbreak in China since the company streams live online classes. However, in April 2020, Citron Research slapped a short on the stock, alleging inflated revenues by up to 70%. In May, Muddy Waters backed the allegations, saying GSX overstated its user numbers by "at least" 73.2%, and "quite likely" by 80.8% – and claimed it "openly recruits engineers to help it run bot farms." Moreover, Grizzly Research had issued two reports, one in February and another this month, titled "Smoking Gun Evidence of Fraud." The firm alleged that GSX inflated its student numbers and revenue by a whopping 900%. Further, Grizzly claimed GSX bought more than 200,000 fake WeChat accounts, as well as national IDs, a practice that may lead to legal issues with Chinese authorities. GSX denied all short reports and has threatened to sue Grizzly Research. But now, its legal bills are mounting as the company faces multiple class-action suits in the United States from investors' rights litigators. In addition, GSX is battling VIPKid in a Beijing court. The rivaling online education platform is accusing GSX of trade secret theft. Two former VIPKid employees are working at GSX since the latter started hiring staff from rivaling educators last year, as reported by KrAsia. In its latest earnings report, posted in early May, GSX stated revenues grew nearly fivefold year-over-year to $183.2 million in the first quarter, while net income reached $20.9 million. Paid course enrollments, GSX said, increased 307% to 774,000. Muddy Waters called GSX a "massive loss-making business" and an "almost completely empty box." Surprisingly, the three research firms had failed to lessen investor loyalty in GSX. As of early June, GSX stock rebounded from $29 to near $39 per share. May 17: Luckin Coffee Inc. (Nasdaq: LK) This Chinese company has become the epitome of a good trade gone bad. Once the most successful IPO of 2019, it is now fighting a delisting from the stock exchange and attempting to save its business after 2.2 billion yuan in uncovered fraud. The coffee chain raised about $651 million in its initial public offering on May 17 and the concurrent private placement of shares. From its issue price of $17 per ADS, LK stock doubled by the year-end, then reached just over $50 in January before an anonymous short-seller alleged the coffee giant significantly overstated its sales in 2019. The short-seller report, published by Muddy Waters, followed an internal investigation at Luckin, which led to the sacking of its chief executive officer Jenny Zhiya Qian, chief operating officer Jian Liu, and a number of other employees, as well as the resignation of chief technology officer, Gang He, and others. Now, the coffee chain will start closing some stores it fought so furiously to open in its goal to outnumber Starbucks (Nasdaq: SBUX) in China -- reportedly, Luckin operated more than 6,500 locations in April. These days, the loss-making Luckin is seeing mounting debt and lawyer expenses as it faces a class-action suit in the United States in addition to losing access to investor capital. In addition, news surfaced that Luckin's chairman Zhengyao Lu may face criminal charges as investigators found emails in which he instructed colleagues to commit fraud. Earlier, Lu has been hit hard by creditors trying to liquidate his assets. Shares in Luckin resumed trading in May after a monthlong hold and are traded as of mid-June at just over $3 apiece. May 10: Jiayin Group Inc. (Nasdaq: JFIN) This peer-to-peer lender is trading at $3.90 per ADS compared to its issue price of $10.50. Its 52-week trading range is $1.60 to $30 per share, resembling just another stock flop -- if it wasn't for the time frame of that range. After treading just above $2 per share since March, on Wednesday, June 10, JFIN went wild and soared to its highest level yet on some mysterious reason. It even issued a terse press release saying the company was unaware of what caused such volatility. Jiayin reported revenue of $44.3 million, down 59%, on net income of $5.6 million, down 84%, for the first quarter. It dropped back down in trading to just under $4 per ADS that day. The company said 44.5% of its loans were funded by institutional investors during the first trimester – compared to zero at the same time last year. Jiayin raised $36.8 million in its initial public offering a year ago. Like rivaling peer-to-peer lenders, the company has been transitioning to institutional funding sources and microfinancing after Beijing cracked down on the fraud-ridden sector. In October, the company had sold a subsidiary, Shanghai Caiyin Asset Management, to a third party guarantee company for $152.3 million. Recently, Jiayin announced it has acquired a stake in a microcredit provider. In addition, the company is considering acquiring a lending license to make loans on its books. May 3: Yunji Inc. (Nasdaq: YJ) Yunji, an online retailer, became publicly traded on May 3 in an IPO worth $121 million. Issued at $11 per ADS, its stock now trades at under $3. In the year of its IPO, Yunji has transitioned from a social e-commerce site that grew on membership incentives to operating on the marketplace model similar to Alibaba (NYSE: BABA; HKEX: 9988), JD.com (Nasdaq: JD), and Pinduoduo (Nasdaq: PDD). In fact, Yunji's membership-based model has reportedly caused some legal trouble in the past. Chinese medium Ikanchai reported in April 2019 that Yunji had been fined 9.6 million yuan on allegations of operating a pyramid scheme, after which the company improved, as confirmed by Hangzhou regulators. On a side note, the same medium said Yunji was hoping to raise $1 billion in a U.S. IPO. The "improved" model worked as follows: Subscribers got access to discounts and other perks, and if they attracted additional buyers via social promotion, they would get cash bonuses. Yunji would incentivize users with Yun-coins and coupons for future purchases, according to the filings. Under the new marketplace business model Yunji launched in 2019, it charged merchants commissions on goods sold through the platform and was no longer responsible for the quality of the products. E-commerce is a highly competitive market in China, dominated by the aforementioned three platforms -- Alibaba, JD, and Pinduoduo. Yunji's CFO Chen Chen told CapitalWatch in an interview on IPO day that the company sought to stand out by selling products from non-mainstream, domestic suppliers, in addition to well-known brands – and it did not charge for ads, in contrast to platforms like Alibaba's Tmall. Chen said, "Emerging brands -- they can create or produce high-quality products, but they are small, and their resources are very limited. If you want to secure a page on Alibaba, you pay around 10 million yuan -- that's a huge amount, but Alibaba will not guarantee any final sales results." The shift to the new business model caused a reduction in revenue in the short-term, as CW columnist Donovan Jones demonstrated in his analysis of Yunji last month. YJ's topline revenue has been contracting significantly over the past five quarters, and gross profit similarly dropped. Jones noted the new model might lead to gains in the long term, but the uncertainty remains. For 2019, Yunji reported $1.7 billion in revenues, down 10%, and losses of $17.8 million. For the first trimester of 2020, it posted $232.9 million in revenues on $1.9 million in net loss – slower-than-expected growth due to the Covid-19 outbreak. May 2: So-Young International Inc. (Nasdaq: SY) The platform, which promotes plastic surgery, is trading 35% below its issue price in New York. It raised $179.4 million by selling shares priced at $13.80 apiece and has been fluctuating downwards, now at the level of $10.23. In the first quarter, during the Covid-19 outbreak in China, So-Young enjoyed doubled user growth on its platform, as well as a 22% increase in paying medical service providers. Revenues declined 11% year-over-year to $25.8 million, but still exceeded So-Young's expectations, according to the report. Net loss was $5.1 million, in contrast, to posting a profit the year before. The company also noted strategic investments it has made to increase user stickiness. For 2019, So-Young reported $165.4 million in revenues, up 87%, and income of $25.4 million, a 221% increase from 2018. Other than financial reports, So-Young has been quiet on the news front. Don Jones rated So-Young as "neutral" in his analysis of the platform in April, taking a cautious approach as the medical aesthetic services were halted during the epidemic. April 3: Ruhnn Holding Ltd. (Nasdaq: RUHN) This stock is also a troubled one. China's largest social media influencers company debuted at $12.50 per share and has been trading below IPO level since ravaged by lawsuits and scandal. The latter occurred just recently. In late April, Alibaba Group (NYSE: BABA; HKEX: 9988) demoted its youngest partner, Fan Jiang, after an alleged affair with the co-founder of Ruhnn. Jiang's wife accused him via social media of an affair with Dayi Zhang, herself a key opinion leader (KOL). Alibaba is an investor in Ruhnn and Jiang's alleged relationship with Zhang could mean preferential treatment, though the e-commerce giant said its internal investigation failed to discover such. It explained the demotion of Jiang, who oversaw the operations of Taobao and Tmall, on the damage he has done to Alibaba's reputation. Now to the class action suit. A number of firms including Rosen Law and Glancy Prongay & Murray are pursuing Ruhnn for failing to disclose certain information at the time of IPO. Specifically, investors' right litigators allege that the number of RUHN's online stores has fallen by nearly 40%, the number of full-service KOLs on its platform has declined by 44%, and its revenue from the full-service segment has dropped by 46% on a sequential basis. Ruhnn had replied that all the information was "right, fully compliant and legal." Don Jones has covered Ruhnn's growth efforts in a March 16 analysis, highlighting the addition of more KOLs to its network and its expansion to more social platforms, including China's top apps Weibo (Nasdaq: WB), Bilibili (Nasdaq: BILI), TikTok, Kuaishou, and Little Red Book. Ruhnn lifted off on April 3 and raised $125 million. Its shares had a wild run, dropping to $3.06 per ADS and trading near that level from late May, rebounding in September to over $7 per share, falling again on lawsuits, then faring admirably during the Covid-19 outbreak, trading just under $9. From mid-March, however, it's been a slide until early June, when Ruhnn reported narrowed net loss and a $15 million share buyback program. As of mid- June, RUHN was at $3.37 per ADS. March 29: Puyi Inc. (Nasdaq: PUYI) A third-party wealth management platform, Puyi became publicly traded on March 29, raising $25.8 million for shares priced at $6 each. Its run can be called steady, if not successful since it's currently trading near $6.60 per share. Excluding the period from June 2019 to late August, when it hit as high as $14.80 per ADS, PUYI has stayed at nearly the same level. It briefly dropped below $5 per share -- with a bottom of $4.11 -- in late November, then managed to recover and keep treading near IPO level throughout the Covid-19 outbreak in China. So steady, for no major reason, that it may raise some eyebrows. In late March, Puyi reported revenue decreased 50% year-over-year to $9 million in the six months through December. Net loss was $3.2 million in contrast to $6.5 million in income the preceding year. Yong Ren, Puyi's chief executive officer appointed to the role in September 2019, commented on the results saying the company has been shifting to "the distribution of privately raised funds that mainly invest in public traded stocks" from those "that primarily invest in private companies," which resulted in "a short-term negative impact on our net revenues and profitability." To note, the former CEO of Puyi, founder Haifeng Yu, remained the company's chairman after the new hire. Ren also said in the statement that the transaction value of privately raised fund products has significantly declined since the beginning of 2020 due to the quarantine measures. He added that the company expects to incur losses of between $8.4 million to $9.8 million in the six months through June 2020. Even then, PUYI stock remained just about unphased. Its average trading volume is at 13,320. March 20: Up Fintech Holding Ltd. (Nasdaq: TIGR) Up Fintech, also known as Tiger Brokers, raised $104 million in its IPO. The trading platform, backed by Xiaomi Corp. (HKEX: 1810), sold 13 million ADSs priced at $8 each on March 20, 2019. Now, its stock is trading below $4 per share. The company has taken a number of expansion steps since IPO. In July, it obtained a self-clearing license in the U.S. through the acquisition of Marsco Investment Corp. In late 2019, it launched Cash Plus, which invests in treasury bonds, investment-grade bonds, and bond ETFs. Last month, TIGR launched Fund Mall for investing in global mutual funds. The company has also been operating an ETF called the "UP Fintech China-U.S. Internet Titans ETF" (Nasdaq: TTTN). TTTN offers exposure to an index of 20 leading global internet companies and helps TIGR users learn about ETF investing. Up Fintech also provides ESOP management services and IPO subscription services. The company recently announced it was one of the underwriters on 12 Chinese listings in New York in 2019. TIGR reported $58.7 million in revenues for 2019, up 75% year-over-year, on $6.6 million in losses. Late in May, the company announced it turned to profit for the first time during the first quarter of 2020 as investors spent more time trading online during the lockdown period. TIGR's securities trading volume grew 58.3% year-over-year and revenues soared 137% to $23.2 million. Net income, it said, was $3 million during the quarter. March 8: Futu Holdings Ltd. (Nasdaq: FUTU) This Tencent-backed online brokerage enjoyed a better trading run and was indeed trading 51% above IPO level as of mid-June. Futu raised about $170 million in its IPO and the concurrent private placement of shares. Initially issued at $12 per ADS, FUTU stock was traded just under that level for most of the year after the initial uptrend to over $18 and the subsequent slide on trade war-related market uncertainties. In June 2020, following strong financials, shares in the brokerage exceeded $19 per ADS. After achieving significant growth at home in 2019, Futu hopes to expand in the United States. It has launched the mobile trading platform moomoo in free beta version at the end of 2018 from its office in Silicon Valley. Eventually, FUTU intends to deliver to U.S. investors all the functions of its Hong Kong counterpart, a stock trading app NiuNiu, which allows customers to trade stocks across mainland China, Hong Kong, and New York. It is, however, facing intense competition from established U.S. firms. Like its rival Up Fintech, Futu provides ESOP management services and IPO subscription services, and operates a wealth management platform Money Plus, offering a number of fixed income and equity funds, as well as money market funds. In this report published in early May, CW puts both online brokerages side-by-side for better comparison. Futu reported $136.4 million in revenues for 2019, up 31% year-over-year, on $21.3 million in income. In the first quarter this year, like its rival, Futu performed strongly, seeing revenues double and income grow 240% year-over-year. Revenues reached $63.3 million while net income was $20 million, the company said. The number of paying clients grew 60.4% year-over-year to 238,536. We will wait and see if the brokerage can achieve the same growth in the U.S. market, where it faces intense competition from commission-free platforms. This was part two of the two-part overview covering 2019 Chinese listings in New York working backward from June to January. Today, the continued listing status of some of these companies is uncertain as Wall Street is moving to act against the lack of audit transparency from Chinese firms and toward increased protection of the U.S. investor. In the context of increased Sino-American tensions, things could get ugly for the companies and their investors. The next stop for many of these companies will be Hong Kong, which has relaxed its listing policies in an attempt to attract Chinese techs -- and investors. [GN] [*] Korean Student Group Calls for Tuition Refund Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Yonhap reports that a university in Seoul is moving to become the country's first university to partially refund tuition amid the ongoing pandemic, possibly sending shock waves in the higher education circles. As the global crisis caused by the novel coronavirus has created a major disruption in the way the country's higher education institutions offers classes, students have increasingly demanded to get back some of their tuition and fees. While most colleges and universities have turned a deaf ear to the growing calls and the education ministry seems reluctant to intervene, some are actually considering a refund. One such example is Konkuk University in Seoul, which has been holding a series of meetings with the Student Council since April, to discuss the size of a partial refund. The result is expected to come out within this week. The refund for its 15,000-strong student body will be offered in the form of a tuition cut for the fall semester. When it happens, it would be the first higher education institution to acknowledge the shortfalls of online classes and students' rights to quality education. The discussion started in April, when the university responded to the council's repeated calls for a review of the tuition policy and a possible partial refund. The school reportedly referred to a poll conducted on 4,000 students, which showed the respondents were in overwhelming favor of a refund. A person with direct knowledge of the discussion said the council demanded the school use "every possible financial means" to make the payment. A decision at the university is likely to have repercussions for similar discussions in other schools. Since the pandemic forced schools to shut down campuses and offer online classes, there have been continuing complaints from students that they were not getting what they paid for. Students' groups nationwide have called for universities to compensate for what they argued was a violation of their "right to learn." One student advocacy group is looking for participants for a class-action lawsuit demanding tuition refunds. But most universities maintain that it is nearly impossible to cough up tuition, citing a rise in pandemic-related costs for setting up online classes and running disinfection and quarantine programs on campus. Regarding Konkuk University's move to refund, an official from the ministry said the decision is being made "entirely on its own," adding that most universities were unwilling to make such a move. The Korean Council for University Education, a consultative group for the country's universities, said that it was not considering a refund. But it would review diverting a state-funded budget to subsidize students if the government eases restrictions on its use. The budget in question is supposed to be spent only for education and research purposes. A ministry official said spending the budget on student subsidies does not meet the budget's original purposes but added that the ministry was mulling measures to help support universities that offer financial assistance to students affected by the pandemic. [GN] [*] Lawyers, Class Action Litigation Funders Get Big Profits ------------------------------------------------------------ Nick Cater, writing for The Australian, reports that class action lawyers have been circling pandemic-struck Australia, staring down with gimlet eyes in search of grievances to inflame. In quieter times, they spend their days scanning the transcripts of royal commissions or watching the ABC's Four Corners. In 2017, Four Corners reported allegations that firefighting foam containing poly-fluoroalkyl substances had spread toxic pollution to land close to defence force bases. Scary as it sounds, it turns out that most of us have some PFAS in our system and there is no firm evidence they cause disease. Yet nearby residents and landowners had reason to be alarmed. Four Corners was not the first media outlet to spread fears that PFAS in large quantities might cause cancer, heart disease and put pregnant women and breastfed babies at risk. The Department of Defence also had reason to be concerned. In the litigious times in which we live, everything is presumed risky until it's proven safe. The first three class actions were settled out of court in March. The department agreed to pay $212.5 million to class action members near the Williamtown, Katherine and Oakey bases. It amounted to $100,000 per person. There was also the matter of costs. The services of Shine Lawyers and Dentons, who ran the class actions, do not come cheaply. There were also the fees owed to Omni-Bridgeway, Australia's biggest litigation funder, which was demanding a commission of 30 per cent. When costs were agreed in court earlier this month, Omni-Bridgeway's cut was $76.9 million, of which $47.7 million was profit. With returns like these, it is little wonder that foreign investment is streaming into Australia, anxious for a slice of the returns. The purpose of civil law is to deal with citizens whose rights have been infringed. Any remittances that lawyers and funders may make along the way should be incidental. In the field of class actions, however, the lure of fat profits is driving a spiralling number of class actions in which compensation for the plaintiffs is little more than a by-product. Our justice system has hurtled along the American path and then some. A study released by the Menzies Research Centre found that return on investment last year for Australia's three biggest litigation funders was between 139 per cent and 165 per cent - 17 times more than investors in ASX 200 stocks and more than 10 times the average global hedge fund. Not surprisingly, the number of class actions and the size of the claims has risen sharply. In November 2009, it was estimated that there were $2.6bn worth of active class action claims against Australian businesses. By 2019, that figure had quadrupled to more than $10bn. Meanwhile, the lawyers and funders are helping themselves to ever larger pieces of the cake. In 2016, class action members would receive $6 in every $10 awarded, on average. By last year, it had fallen to just $4, with legal and funding fees absorbing the rest. It is little wonder that litigation funders and law firms are tripping over one another to get a slice of this. No fewer than five teams were bidding to take on AMP after the adverse findings by the financial services royal commission. Maurice Blackburn eventually won the right to seek damages for alleged breaches of corporate regulation. That is not a little ironic, since litigation funders are exempt from investment regulations thanks to a decision by Chris Bowen as treasurer in 2013. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has now announced that loophole will be closed, putting litigation funders under the supervision of ASIC. It remains to be seen if ASIC is up to the job. The 1992 introduction of provisions allowing plaintiffs to litigate collectively was well intentioned. It was designed to make justice more affordable by sharing risk and costs. That noble aim has been corrupted by the profit motive. Lawyers' duties, long established, are to their clients and to the courts. A litigation funder, however, is under no such obligation. As third parties to legal proceedings, their interest is purely commercial. Yet their power to turn off the funding tap allows them to exercise near-total control over how proceedings are run. They pay the fees for plaintiff lawyers, they decide when and how to settle and they can pull their funding at any time. The potential for a divergence of interest between the class members and funder is considerable. It is particularly troubling that the interests of class members are controlled by strangers to legal proceedings whose sole interest is their return on investment. It is a situation that is ripe for abuse. Justice apart, there is a strong economic imperative to prioritise the reform of this area of civil law. The escalating cost of proceedings is significantly adding to the cost of doing business at a time when the economy is entering recession. Much of the burden of these costs is ultimately carried by ordinary Australians through the loss of jobs, wages, reduced retirement savings or as taxpayers. In the case of PFAS, the picnic has barely just begun. As The Sydney Morning Herald reported with naive glee in March, the three cases settled so far are just the tip of the iceberg. At least 90 sites across the country are said to be contaminated with this stuff and class action lawyers are investigating the possibility of legal action at a further 24 military bases. There is nothing fair about the system as it stands. Its impact is steeply regressive, rewarding some of the richest professionals in the country at the expense of those who can least afford it. Litigation that delivers private profits for a few at the expense of the many is an injustice that should not be allowed to stand. Nick Cater is executive director of the Menzies Research Centre. The report, Litigation Nation: How Australia has become an investment destination at the expense of justice, is available at www.menziesrc.org [GN] [*] Torys LLP Attorneys Discuss COVID-19 Litigation Risk -------------------------------------------------------- David Outerbridge, Esq. -- douterbridge@torys.com -- Sylvie Rodrigue, Esq. -- srodrigue@torys.com -- and David Wawro, Esq. -- dwawro@torys.com -- of Torys LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that litigation risks are materially different today, under COVID-19, than at the start of 2020 when the threat of a world-changing global pandemic was barely an idea. The economic and strategic considerations affecting organizations' litigation decisions are shifting. This article examines that shift and explores the consequences for litigants going forward as they seek to resolve disputes in the pandemic environment -- both existing legal disputes and new litigation arising from COVID-19. The effect of COVID-19 on existing litigious disputes COVID-19 is influencing litigation leverage and litigation risk in existing disputes. The cost/benefit analysis of litigating, and the strategies and tactics needed to arrive at an optimal outcome, must be assessed anew by all litigants. Although the effect is not universal, there are many existing disputes in which the opportunities for compromise and early settlement have been enhanced. In others, the outlook is more likely to be one of delays. Three major changes need to be considered. First, there has been a material change in the value-for-money analysis associated with pursuing a litigated outcome. In the current liquidity and risk environment, the perceived benefits of expending substantial funds on a multi-year litigation process with an uncertain outcome are changing for some litigants. Many parties need to free up cash, reduce costs or eliminate contingent liabilities now. In some cases, the financial pressures created by the pandemic will drive a party to settle on terms that would have been unacceptable a few months ago. In other cases, the effect of the pandemic will be to cause a reduction in immediate legal spend and the deferral of litigation activity to a later date. A second major shift in the litigation environment relates to the potential insolvency of one's litigation adversary. With even some of the healthiest corporate players now financially threatened, litigants need to consider carefully whether to settle their disputes sooner or later, taking into account the potential that the financial viability of their litigation adversary may worsen. For plaintiffs, an early settlement now on less-than-optimal terms may be preferable to waiting for better terms, given the enhanced risk that the defendant may not survive the wait. For defendants, a plaintiff's liquidity and solvency concerns may enable early settlement on terms more favourable to the defendant, or could incentivize the defendant to extend the proceedings in the hope that this will result in the plaintiff ceasing to remain financially viable. A third factor is that government-imposed physical distancing requirements have resulted in reduced access to courthouses and tribunals, suspended filing deadlines, and (in many but not all matters) postponed trials, hearings, applications and motions. Out-of-court discovery procedures are likewise often being deferred, particularly where defendants can identify a compelling reason for delay, such as inability to meet with clients or access their documents, or a bona fide basis to insist on in-person examination. While courts are still hearing urgent matters and certain classes of disputes (such as class actions) in some major centres -- where hearings are proceeding on an ad hoc basis by way of video conference, teleconference or in writing -- the bulk of the court-driven and tribunal-driven litigation process is on hold. This creates, at least for now, a defendant-friendly environment because plaintiffs cannot as effectively push matters forward in many cases, and therefore cannot leverage the pressure created by an impending hearing or deadline. New dynamics in disputes resulting from COVID-19 The pandemic is generating a host of new legal disputes, including class actions. Human crisis creates a fertile environment for plaintiff class action lawyers, who do not need to look very far for claims they are willing to underwrite. COVID-19 is one of the greatest crises in modern history, and could well be the greatest single generator of class actions to date in history, given the widespread unremedied harm and loss suffered by individuals across all segments of society. Class action activity in the first few months of the pandemic already includes: -- privacy claims (e.g., alleging failure of a video- conferencing platform to protect personal information -- personal injury claims (e.g., alleging failure to protect against COVID-19); -- employment claims (e.g., for mass layoffs, unsafe working conditions); -- securities disclosure claims (e.g., alleging failure to disclose the effect of the pandemic on the organization in a timely fashion); -- consumer protection claims (e.g., for not refunding payments relating to purchases that could not be fulfilled); and -- insurance claims (e.g., for not providing coverage for certain types of losses). The range of class actions that COVID-19 is generating will continue to grow. Successfully defending some of these class actions will be vital for the organization being targeted—that is, the significance of the claim may be such that the survival of the organization depends on either successfully defending against it, or negotiating a compromise resolution that allows the organization to continue. The leverage for class counsel, and the determination of defendants, are heightened. The pandemic is also producing a range of new inter-party commercial disputes, such as novel force majeure claims affecting supply chain and construction contracts, claims through which buyers seek to terminate corporate acquisition agreements based on material adverse effect clauses, interim operating covenants, bring down requirements or other alleged breaches, whistleblower suits relating to improper receipt of government funds, and cybersecurity claims, among a variety of others. Many of these claims will likewise be of heightened importance for defendants, for at least two reasons. First, less material disputes are now more likely to be resolved at the business level, given cash scarcity, a less efficient justice system and the need to prioritize business continuity. Second, the pandemic is generating "bet the farm" litigation at a higher rate. The breaches of material contracts are more frequent; the dollar values of the losses are higher. A related trend in the non-class action litigation space may be increased use of private arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms outside the traditional court process. In the short term, this consequence is arising from the shutting down of the court system. In the longer term, it is expected that some commercial parties will prefer private dispute resolution, with the goal (if not always the effect) of expediting the process, controlling the costs, and achieving greater certainty of outcome. It is not yet known how courts and arbitrators will react to the unprecedented cluster of problems and losses created by COVID-19. The effects of the pandemic are far broader than any single private law dispute. It is likely that adjudicators, in assessing the merits of any particular claim arising from COVID-19 (whether a class action or an ordinary inter-party claim), will weigh the law and the equities carefully before laying the concentrated financial risk of the pandemic on the shoulders of any single defendant. Due diligence takes a different form in a crisis, and adjudicators can be expected to be attentive to whether a defendant took steps that were reasonable based on the limited time and information available. The assessment of what constitutes reasonable contractual risk allocation will likewise be performed differently when dealing with a risk no one considered or could readily have fully accounted for. Ultimately, there are some losses for which our system of private law will not be prepared to compensate. [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 ***