/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200706.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 6, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 134 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Harmon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 665 9TH AVE: Perez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages ABM INDUSTRIES: Class Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Bucio Suit ACCELERATED INVENTORY: Liptak Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ALABAMA: Veitch Files Class Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Parties in Martin FACTA Suit Reach Settlement ALLIED INTERNATIONAL: Rosa Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Acts ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Goldsmith Contract Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. AMBRY GENETICS: Patients Slam Personal Info Leak AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Zevon Suit Over Inaccurate Disclosures AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Arif Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund ARIZONA BOARD: Doemel Seeks Refund of School Fees ARK RESTAURANTS: Former Tipped Workers' Class Suit Ongoing ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in Cal. ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Court Sends "Membrives" Parties to Mediation AXA EQUITABLE: Still Defends O'Donnell Class Action in Connecticut AXA EQUITABLE: Still Faces Brach Family Foundation Class Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Berkshire Appeals Judgment in Antitrust Suit BAYVIEW LOAN: Nevada District Dismisses Baham Consumer Credit Suit BEST BUY: Misrepresents Insignia Power Banks' mAh, Robinson Says BEYOND MEAT: Lead Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint BEYOND MEAT: Massaro Class Suit Over Spam Text Underway BOK FINANCIAL: Municipal Securities Suit Underway in Oklahoma BOKF NA: Court Denies Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of Walker Suit BOTTEGA VENETA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Alleges BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Reaches Stipulation to Dismiss Atkins Class Suit C.F. GOLLOTT: O'Brien Lawsuit Remanded to State Court CALIFORNIA VEGETABLE: Sued by Rechner for Not Giving COBRA Notice CASPER SLEEP: Jankowiak Sues Over Stock Trading Below IPO Price CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Ealy-Simon Seeks Off-the-Clock Pay for PSRs CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Amended Complaint Filed in "Alvarez" CLECO CORPORATE: Class Action over 2016 Merger Underway COLLINS MOBILE: Staff Seeks Pay Over Denied Meal Breaks CORE HOME SECURITY: Alvarez Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Directors Still Defend Voigt Class Action COSAN LIMITED: Civil Class Action over Waste Disposal Stayed COSAN LIMITED: Parties Still Await Appointment of Legal Expert COSAN LIMITED: Suit Against CLE Ongoing COSAN LIMITED: Suit v. CLE in Sao Jose dos Pinhais Still Suspended COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Unit Continues to Defend Tabizon Suit CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Court Stays Fondren Class Certification Motion CRESCENT CAPITAL: To Indemnify Alcentra D&Os in Investor Suit DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES: Facing Sherman Putative Class Suit DEUTSCHE BANK: Rock Capital Alleges Manipulation of Futures Prices DISH DBS: Appeal in Krakauer Class Action Still Pending DISH DBS: Retirement Fund Suit vs. DISH Network, et al. Underway EMERALD HOLDING: Steamfitters Suit Challenges Rights Offering ESTEE LAUDER: Bilello et al. Sue Over Mismanaged 401(k) Plan EVOLENT HEALTH: Retirement Funds File 2nd Amended Complaint FCA US: Hromowyk Appeals Judgment in Spratley Suit to 2nd Circuit FINN PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Mualem Claims FLORIDA MERCHANT: Diaz Suit Moved From Cir. Court to S.D. Florida FRANCHISE GROUP: Appeal in Liberty Tax Securities Suit Ongoing FRANCHISE GROUP: Asbestos Workers' Pension Fund Suit Ongoing FREEMAN SECURITY: Rivera Sues in M.D. Florida Over FLSA Violation GENERAL ELECTRIC CO: Baz Sues Over Employee Data Breach GOLDEN HOME: Torres Seeks Proper Pay for General Assistants GOSSAMER BIO: Kuhne Putative Class Action Underway in California GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY: Tran Seeks Disgorgement/Return of Fees GREAT AMERICAN: KidsPark Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses GUABA DELI: Ramos Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA and NYLL H&R BLOCK: Bid to Stay Proceeding in Swanson Class Suit Pending H&R BLOCK: Continues to Defend Olosoni and Snarr Class Suit HARTFORD CASUALTY: Siegel & Siegel Files Suit in S.D. New York HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Alvarez Sues Over Shelved Flight, Seeks Refund HEALTHY HALO: Gordon Remanded to Spokane County Superior Court HEARTWISE INC: Mislabels NatureWise Curcumin Caps, Valentine Says HENRY SCHEIN: Time to Appeal Dismissal Order Already Passed HERC RENTALS: Rudolph Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: Sandoval Sues Over High Levels of NDMA INHIBITOR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Investor Suit in Delaware INSULET CORP: Johnson Suit Moved From Super. Court to C.D. Calif. IQVIA INC: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, Dearing et al. Claim JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Health Plan Sues Over Delay in Generic Entry JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Aitboukil Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida JENNER'S POND: Improperly Deducts Entrance Refund, MacLeod Alleges LEIKIN INGBER: Van Vleck Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Assa'ad-Faltas Appeals Decision to 4th Cir. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Wagner Alleges Unlawful Telemarketing Calls LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Attorney's Fee Award Vacated LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Sept. 24 Final Approval Hearing on Gold Accord LYFT INC: Bid for Injunctive Relief in Cunningham Suit Denied MAGELLAN HEALTH: Griffe Sues in Arizona Over Breach of Contract MALBRO CONSTRUCTION: Sued over Non-Payment of Contract Balance MANHATTAN COLLEGE: Beck Seeks Tuition Fee Refund MAST BROTHERS: Fischler Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation MDL 2955: Transfer of Seven Class Suits to E.D. Arkansas Sought MDL 2956: Transfer of 8 Class Actions to E.D. Michigan Sought MDL 2957: Transfer of 38 Class Suits to N.D. Illinois Sought METROPOLITAN LIFE: Parties Agree to Dismiss Atkins Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Amansec Disputes Collection Letter MIDLAND CREDIT: Spitz Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices MJLST LLC: Violates Americans With Disabilities Act, Laufer Says MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Abernathy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime MULTICARE HEALTH: Shortman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts MYLAN NV: Faces PERS of MS Suit Over Declining Price of Shares NATURE MED PREMIUM: Duboise Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts NEW YORK, NY: Curfew Violates Residents' Rights, Jeffery Claims NEW YORK: Second Cir. Appeal v. Guzman Filed in Gulino Bias Suit NOBLE HOUSE: Faces Servin Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Court OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Class Suit OSMOTICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in N.J. PALM ROYALE: Weaver Sues Under TCPA Over Unsolicited Messages PATTERSON COS: Plymouth Retirement System Suit Ongoing PITTSBURGH, PA: Rulli Sues Over Breaches of Constitutional Rights PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Valadez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin PORTX INC: Sirin Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NJWHL PRET A MANGER: Barton Balks at "Natural" Label on Food Products PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Baker Sues in D. Vermont Over Violation of TCPA PROASSURANCE CORP: Faces Suit over 22% Drop in Share Price RED TIE LLC: Shafer Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages REGIS CORP: Awaits Court's Approval of Settlements REWALK ROBOTICS: Appeal to Revive Securities Class Suit Pending SALADINO'S INC: Faces Aranda Employment Class Suit in California SALLIE MAE: Second Circuit Appeal Initiated in Homaidan Suit SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Dismisses Second Amended Ware Suit SAN FERNANDO VALLEY AUTO: Noorparvar Sues Over Spam Text Messages SARASOTA, FL: Court Denies Certification of FLSA Collective SB ONE BANCORP: Facing Suit Over Provident Financial Merger SENTINEL INSURANCE CO: Lee Sues Over Denied Benefit Claims SHAMROCK FOODS: Ruiz Lacks Article III Standing, 9th Cir. Affirms SHIFTPIXY INC: Still Faces Splond Wage-and-Hour Class Action SHUTTERFLY INC: Garfield Files 3rd Cir. Appeal in Securities Suit SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Calif. Case Settlement Awaits Court's Initial OK SK ENERGY: Enriquez Sues Over Conspiracy in Gasoline Market SKILLED INTERNATIONAL: Bankhead Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Paystubs SMITH & NEPHEW: Taylor Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA SMITTY'S SUPPLY: THF Products "Deceptive," Feldkamp et al. Allege STUBHUB INC: Faces Wood Suit Over Denial of Ticket Refunds SUPER DIAMOND EAGLE: Aldaco Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeals Order in ACTOS Antitrust Suit TELIGENT INC: Econazole Antitrust Litigation Ongoing TELIGENT INC: Okla. Police Pension Fund & Retirement Suit Ongoing TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Garity Sues over Proposed Merger TRADER JOE'S: Kong Sues Over Breaches of Plan Duties Under ERISA TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Riverwalk Sues Over Failure to Honor Duties TRUIST FINANCIAL: Steward Suit Over PPP Fees Moved to M.D. Fla. UBER TECH: Court Denies Bid for Injunctive Relief in Capriole Suit UNDER ARMOUR: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Maryland UNITED STATES: Hall Appeals N.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit UNITI GROUP: Arkansas Court Consolidates 3 Putative Class Actions US OIL FUND: Facing Lucas Putative Class Suit in New York UXIN LIMITED: Appeal in New York Securities Suit Still Pending UXIN LTD: Machniewicz Suit Proceeds to Mediation VECTOR GROUP: Parsons Class Action Remains Stayed VECTOR GROUP: Young Personal Injury Class Suit Remains Stayed VERDE ENERGY: Richardson Settlement Wins Final Approval VIVID SEATS: Donets Sues over Biometric Data Collection W.B. MASON: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Sosa Claims WALMART INC: Williams Says Infant Milk Powder Label "Misleading" WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Herrington to Recover $1.1MM in Counsel Fees WELLS FARGO: T.C. Koziara Files Class Suit in M.D. North Carolina WEST CREEK: Smart Files Consumer Credit Suit in M.D. Georgia XPERI CORP: Facing Suits Over TiVo Merger YANFENG US: Breached Fiduciary Duties to 401(k)Plan, Dover Claims ZAPPOS IP: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA ZIMMER BIOMET: $50-Mil. Accord in Shah Case Wins Initial Approval ZYNERBA PHARMACEUTICALS: Wants E.D. Pa. Securities Suit Dismissed ********* 3M COMPANY: Harmon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY HARMON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-02311-RMG (D.S.C., June 18, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury for the Plaintiff and for those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Harmon case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: 631-600-0000 Facsimile: 631-543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 665 9TH AVE: Perez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Anastacio Romero Perez, Gilberto Pazaran Cristobal, Javier Mora Peralta, and Julio Cesar Hernandez Parra, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 665 9TH AVE. RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A GALAXY DINER), STEVEN ANTONATOS, JOHN PANORIOS, ELIAS NEOFOTISTOS, JUAN PEREZ, JUAN NASARIO, and MAURICIO DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04973 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The lawsuit is also brought for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs have 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 have worked, according to the complaint. Rather, the Defendants have failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and have failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants have also failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they have had to work over 10 hours a day, the Plaintiffs says. The Plaintiffs add that the Defendants have repeatedly failed to pay employees' wages on a timely basis. The Plaintiffs have been employed as cooks, dishwashers, a supervisor, and ostensibly as delivery workers at the Defendants' restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control a diner, in New York City under the name Galaxy Diner.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ABM INDUSTRIES: Class Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Bucio Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that class discovery is ongoing in the the consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The Bucio case is a class action pending in San Francisco Superior Court that alleges that the company failed to provide legally required meal periods and make additional premium payments for such meal periods, pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse janitors for travel expenses. There is also a claim for penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs appealed the class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, heard oral arguments on November 7, 2017. On December 11, 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order denying class certification and remanded the matter for certification of a meal period, travel expense reimbursement, and split shift class. T he case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings on class certification, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial. On September 20, 2018, the trial court entered an order defining four certified subclasses of janitors who were employed by the legacy ABM janitorial companies in California at any time between April 7, 2002 and April 30, 2013, on claims based on alleged previous automatic deduction practices for meal breaks, unpaid meal premiums, unpaid split shift premiums, and unreimbursed business expenses, such as mileage reimbursement for use of personal vehicles to travel between worksites. On February 1, 2019, the trial court held that the discovery related to PAGA claims allegedly arising after April 30, 2013 would be stayed until after the class and PAGA claims accruing prior to April 30, 2013 had been tried. The parties engaged in mediation in July 2019, which did not result in settlement of the case. On October 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to certify additional classes based on an alleged failure to maintain time records, an alleged failure to provide accurate wage statements, and an alleged practice of combining meal and rest breaks. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify additional classes on December 26, 2019. The case was re-assigned to a new judge on January 6, 2020. The parties are currently engaged in class discovery. The class action claims accruing prior to April 30, 2013 are set for trial on January 19, 2021, but this date may be delayed as a result of the Pandemic. ABM Industries said, "Prior to trial, we will have the opportunity to, among other things, seek decertification of the classes or engage in further mediation if we deem such actions appropriate. We may engage in one or more such activities in upcoming quarters." ABM Industries Incorporated is a facility services contractor. The Company provides air conditioning, engineering, janitorial, lighting, parking, security, and other outsourced facility services to the commercial, industrial, and institutional customers across North America. The company is based in New York, New York. ACCELERATED INVENTORY: Liptak Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Robert Liptak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACCELERATED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT, LLC; OLIPHANT FINANCIAL, LLC; JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. GD-20-006455, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 29, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00967-MJH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. ACCELERATED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT LLC is a collections agency headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene D. Frank, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE D. FRANK, P.C. 3202 McKnight East Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15237 Phone: (412) 366-4276 Fax: (412) 366-4305 Email: efrank.esq@comcast.net - and - Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP, LLC 186 42nd Street PO Box 40127 Pittsburgh, PA 15201 Phone: (412) 223-5740 Fax: (412) 626-7101 Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Brit J. Suttell, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C. 10 Beatty Road, Suite 200 Media, PA 19063 Phone: (484) 999-4232 Email: britjsuttell@bn-lawyers.com ALABAMA: Veitch Files Class Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ivey, et al. (INMATE 2). The case is styled as Thomas Daniel Veitch, the Inmate population of the Alabama Department of Corrections as a whole, and all those similarly situated v. Kay Ivey, Governor of the State of Alabama, in her official and individual capacity; Alabama Department of Corrections; Jefferson S. Dunn, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, in his official and individual capacity; Red Eagle Work Center; Charles Tipton, Warden II, In his official and individual capacity; Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles; Charles A. Graddick, Director of the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles, In his official and individual capacity; Alabama Attorney General's Office, Case No. 2:20-cv-00448-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala., June 26, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) for Prisoner Civil Rights. Kay Ellen Ivey is an American politician serving as the 54th governor of Alabama since 2017. A member of the Republican Party, she was the 38th Alabama State Treasurer from 2003 to 2011 and the 30th lieutenant governor of Alabama from 2011 to 2017. Plaintiff Thomas Daniel Veitch is currently incarcerated at the Kilby Correctional Facility, in Mt. Meigs, Alabama. He appears pro se.[BN] ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Parties in Martin FACTA Suit Reach Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Albertsons Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2020, that the parties in the class action case styled, Martin v. Safeway, will seek court approval of their settlement in principle. On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Martin v. Safeway was filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging the Company failed to comply with the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") by printing receipts that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as required by FACTA. The plaintiff claims the violation was "willful" and exposes the Company to statutory damages provided for in FACTA. The Company has answered the Complaint and is vigorously defending the matter. On January 8, 2020, the Company commenced mediation discussions with plaintiff's counsel and reached a settlement in principle on February 24, 2020. The Company said, "The parties will seek court approval of the settlement. The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter." Albertsons Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a food and drug retailer in the United States. Its food and drug retail stores offer grocery products, general merchandise, health and beauty care products, pharmacy, fuel, and other items and services. The company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. Albertsons Companies, Inc. is a subsidiary of Albertsons Investor Holdings LLC. ALLIED INTERNATIONAL: Rosa Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Acts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case Sandra Rosa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- Allied International Credit Corp., and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01262 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2020) alleges that Defendant sent Plaintiff an initial collection letter on or about April 29, 2020, regarding the alleged debt owed to Ebay where Defendant falsely asserted that the balance would increase when it would not, in violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. According to the complaint, some time prior to April 29, 2020, an obligation was allegedly incurred to Ebay by Plaintiff. The alleged Ebay obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5). Ebay contracted with Defendant AIC to collect the alleged debt. Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet. Defendant is aware that during the collection of this debt, the balance will not vary at all and stating that it may increase is merely a deceptive collection tactic intended to intimidate and coerce the consumer into paying immediately. Stating that the account balance may increase due to adjustments is materially misleading to Plaintiff and is a false statement that Defendant knowingly made. Defendant's false statement overshadowed Plaintiff's §1692g right to dispute or validate the debt as he was led to believe that he must pay immediately to avoid accruing interest and fees. As a result of Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, Plaintiff has been damaged. Allied International Credit Corp. is a California-based company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (323) 979-2063 Facsimile: (323) 488-6748 E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Goldsmith Contract Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Erin Goldsmith, Isabel C. Ossa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Alterra Mountain Company, Ikon Pass, Inc., Arch Insurance Company, DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV17165, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 26, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05722 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Contract Dispute. Alterra Mountain Company is a community of 15 iconic year-round destinations, including the world's largest heli-ski operation, offering the Ikon Pass, the new standard in season passes.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Erik K Swanholt, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2411 Phone: (213) 972-4500 Fax: (213) 486-0065 Email: eswanholt@foley.com AMBRY GENETICS: Patients Slam Personal Info Leak ------------------------------------------------ Alma Fidela Cercas, Kaitlyn Nakagoshi and Judy Anne Grause, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ambry Genetics Corp., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03728, (C.D. Cal., April 23, 2020), seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, equitable relief requiring restitution and disgorgement of the revenues wrongfully retained, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and litigation expenses and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied and express contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence and for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. Ambry Genetics Corporation is a provider of healthcare services throughout the United States. Through its online services, Ambry offers a comprehensive genetic testing menu of more than 300 tests for screening and diagnosis for inherited and non-inherited diseases. On or about April 15, 2020, Ambry announced a security incident involving sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information of its patients that included patients' names, dates of birth, health insurance information, medical information, and for some patients, Social Security Numbers. Plaintiffs were patients of Ambry at one time. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq. Michael W. Olson, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 720-1288 Fax (949) 720-1292 Email: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com wpolischuk@robinsonfirm.com molson@robinsonfirm.com - and - Jean S. Martin, Esq. Ryan J. McGee, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 222-4795 Email: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com rmcgee@ForThePeople.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Leslie Guillon, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 Email: aberry@justice4you.com lguillon@justice4you.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Zevon Suit Over Inaccurate Disclosures -------------------------------------------------------------- Marcy Zevon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-04938 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2020), seeks redress for the unlawful practices of the Defendant in providing, in connection with its credit-card accounts, disclosures with inaccuracies or omissions that violated the Truth in Lending Act. According to the complaint, Amex failed to furnish billing statements with complete and accurate information, or clear and conspicuous information, regarding billing dispute inquiries as required by TILA and its implementing regulations. The Defendant's failure to properly provide the required disclosure on the billing statements sent to the Plaintiff and other consumers about the procedure for contesting a charge and preserving billing rights is contrary to the enunciated purposes of TILA; this inadequate disclosure, instead of enabling them to avoid the uninformed use of credit, does the opposite. The Defendant's failure to make this disclosure also resulted in the harm, or the risk of harm, to the levels of credit consumer protection and information that Congress mandated for open-end credit users like the Plaintiff, says the complaint. Plaintiff Zevon is the holder of a credit card account issued by the Defendant and used for household purposes. The Defendant is a bank corporation doing business in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Bromberg, Esq. Joshua Tarrant-Windt, Esq. BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C. 26 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 248-7906 - and - Harley J. Schnall, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF HARLEY J. SCHNALL 711 West End Avenue New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 837-2550 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Arif Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund ------------------------------------------------------- Danish Arif, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. American University, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-60902 (S.D. Fla., May 4, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing, and meals, injunctive relief including enjoining American University from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such other and further relief as may be just and proper, refunds of all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages resulting from breach of contract and unjust enrichment. American University (AU) operates a higher learning campus in Washington, DC where Arif is currently enrolled. He has paid substantial tuition for the Spring 2020 semester. AU decided to close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of the Coronavirus Disease. Arif claims to be deprived the benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities, student activities and other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition. AU refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: swestcot@bursor.com scott@bursor.com ARIZONA BOARD: Doemel Seeks Refund of School Fees ------------------------------------------------- BROCK DOEMEL, individually an on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, Defendant, Case 2:20-cv-01203-JJT (D. Ariz., June 17, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendant the pro-rated portion of the tuition, housing, dining, and mandatory fees, proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the Spring semester 2020, Summer semester 2020, and any future semesters when the Universities switched to online distance learning. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, the Universities have not refunded any amount of the tuition or any portion of the mandatory fees, even though it has implemented online distance learning since mid-March 2020. Because of the Regents response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, by mid-March, the Universities ceased or severely limited any of the services or facilities the mandatory fees were intended to cover. As a result, the Universities unlawfully seized and are in possession of property (funds) of the Plaintiff and Class members in the form of paid tuition, housing, dining, and mandatory fees. The Universities failure to provide the services for which tuition and the mandatory fees were intended to cover since approximately mid-March is a breach of the contracts between the Universities and Plaintiff and the members of the Class, and is unjust. Other than a non-proportional refund credit offered by the University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University, the Universities have not provided refunds to students for housing even though the Universities strongly encouraged students to leave campus in mid-March. The Arizona Board of Regents is the governing board for the state's public universities: Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and the University of Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Facsimile: (480) 304-3805 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 5000 Rockside Road, Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 525-8890 Facsimile: (216) 642-5814 E-mail: james@bswages.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com eciolko@carlsonlynch.com ARK RESTAURANTS: Former Tipped Workers' Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Ark Restaurants Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by two former tipped service workers. On May 1, 2018, two former tipped service workers (the "Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated personnel, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain subsidiaries as well as certain officers of the Company. Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and the putative class, that the Company violated certain of the New York State Labor Laws and related regulations. The Complaint seeks unspecified money damages, together with interest, liquidated damages and attorney fees. There has been no discovery on the merits of the Complaint and the matter is still in the initial stages of discovery concerning whether the named Plaintiffs are seeking to represent an appropriate class of tipped service workers and if so, whether the named Plaintiffs are appropriate class representatives. The Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was denied on June 27, 2019. The Company believes that the allegations and claims in the Complaint are without merit, and it intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation. Ark said, "However, the outcomes of legal actions are unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, and thus it is inherently difficult to determine the probability or quantification of any loss. Based on information currently available, including the Company's assessment of the facts underlying the Complaint and advice of counsel, the Company recorded an accrual for this matter and related expenses as of March 28, 2020." Ark Restaurants Corp. owns and operates 20 restaurants and bars, 19 fast food concepts and catering operations in the U.S. The New York-based Company's portfolio of brands includes Shuckers, The Rustic Inn, and Southwest Porch. ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Armstrong Flooring, Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On November 15, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and/or misleading statements or omissions made between May 6, 2018 and November 4, 2019. The company cannot predict the duration or outcome of this suit at this time. Armstrong said, "As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss arising from this lawsuit. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Armstrong Flooring, Inc. is a leading global producer of resilient flooring products for use primarily in the construction and renovation of commercial, residential and institutional buildings. The company is based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Court Sends "Membrives" Parties to Mediation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashford Hospitality Trust, 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 class action initiated by Pedro Membrives and Michele Spero will proceed to mandatory mediation. On December 4, 2015, Pedro Membrives filed a class action lawsuit against HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Mark A. Sharkey, Archie Bennett, Jr., Monty J. Bennett, Christopher Peckham, and any other related entities in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, Commercial Division. On August 30, 2016, the complaint was amended to add Michele Spero as a Plaintiff and Remington Long Island Employers, LLC as a defendant. The lawsuit is captioned Pedro Membrives and Michele Spero, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Remington Long Island Employers, LLC, et al., Index No. 607828/2015 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty.). The plaintiffs allege that the owner and management company of the Hyatt Regency Long Island hotel violated New York law by improperly retaining service charges rather than distributing them to employees. In 2017, the class was certified. On July 24, 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability. The defendants appealed the summary judgment to the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department (the "Second Department"), and the appeal is still pending. By Order dated May 7, 2020, the Second Department referred the matter for mandatory mediation and the parties are working to schedule a mediation session per the Order. Notwithstanding the pending appeal on the summary judgment issue, the trial court continued the litigation with respect to the plaintiffs' alleged damages. The plaintiffs filed an application for damages on August 28, 2019. The defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiffs' application for damages on October 11, 2019. The plaintiffs filed their reply on October 25, 2019. The defendants intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs' claims and the Company does not believe that an unfavorable outcome is probable. Ashford said, "If, however, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability is upheld and the Company is unsuccessful in any further appeals, the Company estimates that damages could range between approximately $5.8 million and $11.9 million plus attorneys' fees. As of March 31, 2020, no amounts have been accrued." Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels, our investment strategy is predominantly focused on investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that have a revenue per available room ("RevPAR") generally less than two times the U.S. national average. The company is based in Dalas, Texas. AXA EQUITABLE: Still Defends O'Donnell Class Action in Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------------------ AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company still defends itself against a class action suit initiated by Richard T. O'Donnell, 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. In August 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons who purchased variable annuities from Equitable Life, which were subsequently subjected to the volatility management strategy and who suffered injury as a result thereof. Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging that Equitable Life implemented the volatility management strategy in violation of applicable law. Plaintiff seeks an award of damages individually and on a classwide basis, and costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2017, the Southern District of New York granted Equitable Life's motion to dismiss the complaint. In April 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In April 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the trial court's decision with instructions to remand the case to Connecticut state court. In September 2018, the Second Circuit issued its mandate, following Equitable Life's notification to the court that it would not file a petition for writ of certiorari. The case was transferred in December 2018 and is pending in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford. The Company said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and investment management products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1859 and is headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial Services, LLC. AXA EQUITABLE: Still Faces Brach Family Foundation Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company ("Equitable Life") continues to defend itself against a class action suit entitled, Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, 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. In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners of universal life ("UL") policies subject to Equitable Life's COI rate increase. In early 2016, Equitable Life raised COI rates for certain UL policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70 and above and a current face value amount of US$1 million and above. A second putative class action was filed in Arizona in 2017 and consolidated with the Brach matter. The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by Equitable Life in violation of Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section 349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Elder Abuse Statute. Plaintiffs seek; (a) compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment interest; (b) with respect to their claim concerning Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class; and (c) injunctive relief and attorneys' fees in connection with their statutory claims. Five other federal actions challenging the COI rate increase are also pending against Equitable Life and have been coordinated with the Brach action for the purposes of pre-trial activities. They contain allegations similar to those in the Brach action as well as additional allegations for violations of various states' consumer protection statutes and common law fraud. Three actions are also pending against Equitable Life in New York state court. Equitable Life is vigorously defending each of these matters." AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and investment management products and services in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1859 and is headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial Services, LLC. BANK OF AMERICA: Berkshire Appeals Judgment in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Berkshire Bank and Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated May 26, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled In Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 11-md-2262, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Kirby McInerney LLP and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP announced aggregate settlement funds totaling $187,000,000 if one transacted in Eurodollar Futures Contract and/or Options on Eurodollar Futures on Exchanges, such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2011. The Law Firms released a notice to inform creditors of a partial settlement of a class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit involves the alleged manipulation of U.S. Dollar LIBOR ("LIBOR") and its impact on Eurodollar futures contracts and/or options on Eurodollar futures ("Eurodollar Futures") that are linked to LIBOR. The lawsuit against the Non-Settling Defendants remains ongoing. This lawsuit (referred to as the "Exchange-Based Plaintiffs' Action") has been consolidated within In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, 11 MDL No. 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) There are proposed Settlements reached separately with Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. (collectively "BOA"), Barclays Bank plc ("Barclays"), Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (collectively, "Citi"), Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and DB Group Services (UK) Limited (collectively, "Deutsche Bank"), HSBC Bank plc ("HSBC"), JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (collectively "JPMorgan"), and Societe Generale ("SG") (BOA, Barclays, Citi, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JPMorgan, and SG are referred to collectively herein as the "Settling Defendants"). These Settlements impact persons, corporations and other legal entities that transacted in Eurodollar futures contracts and/or options on Eurodollar futures on exchanges, including without limitation, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (the "CME"), between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2011 (the "Settlement Class Period"). The lawsuit asserts that the Defendant banks (listed on the settlement Web site, http://www.USDLiborEurodollarSettlements.com/, artificially manipulated U.S. Dollar LIBOR and Eurodollar Futures during the Settlement Class Period by misreporting their borrowing costs to the organization that calculated LIBOR. The alleged manipulation of the U.S. Dollar LIBOR rate allegedly caused Eurodollar Futures prices to be suppressed and/or inflated to artificial levels, thereby causing Settlement Class Members to pay artificial prices for Eurodollar Futures during the Settlement Class Period. Plaintiffs have asserted claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and Sherman Antitrust Act and for unjust enrichment. The Court has issued at least eight published opinions addressing various legal matters raised by the parties in this action. The Settling Defendants have entered into these proposed Settlements to resolve the claims asserted against them. The Settling Defendants deny all claims of wrongdoing. The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 20-1987, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants The Berkshire Bank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico are represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com Defendants-Appellees Bank of America Corporation, et al., are represented by: Arthur Joseph Burke, Esq. Paul S. Mishkin, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4000 E-mail: arthur.burke@davispolk.com paul.mishkin@davispolk.com - and - Abram Ellis, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 900 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 636-5579 E-mail: aellis@stblaw.com - and - Amos Amory Friedland, Esq. ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (203) 809-1953 E-mail: afriedland@rcfllp.com - and - David Marx, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 227 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60606 - and - Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1 CityCenter, 850 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 E-mail: aruffino@cov.com - and - Aidan Synnott, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: asynnott@paulweiss.com - and - Matthew Charles Crowl, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 258-5609 - and - Abram Ellis, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 900 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 636-5579 - and - Megan P. Davis, Esq. FLEMMING ZULACK WILLIAMSON ZAUDERER LLP 1 Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 412-9500 - and - Benjamin Fleming, Esq. Lisa J. Fried, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 918-3000 - and - Robert G. Houck, Esq. CLIFFORD CHANCE US LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 878-3224 - and - Andrea J. Robinson, esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6360 - and - Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 200 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 706-3962 - and - Alan M. Unger, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 7th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5300 - and - David J. Arp, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8678 - and - Arthur Joseph Burke, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4000 - and - Christopher Martin Paparella, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 881-2360 - and - Marc Alan Weinstein, Esq. HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP 1 Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 837-6460 - and - Melanie Westover Yanez, Esq. MILBANK LLP 1850 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 835-7560 - and - Elai Katz, Esq. CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 80 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 - and - Christopher Michael Viapiano, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1700 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 956-6985 - and - Christian T. Kemnitz, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 525 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 902-5379 - and - Steven Wolowitz, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 - and - Leigh Nathanson, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 790-5359 - and - James Matthew Goodin, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 443-0472 - and - Lev L. Dassin, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP 1 Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2000 - and - Delialh Garcia Vinzon, Esq. MILBANK LLP 2029 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 892-4500 - and - Andrea J. Robinson, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6360 - and - Jeff G. Hammel, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10022 - and - H. Rowan Gaither, IV, Esq. RICHARDS KIBBE & ORBE LLP 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 530-1807 E-mail: rgaither@rkollp.com - and - Debra A. Djupman, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 3 Logan Square 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 241-7964 BAYVIEW LOAN: Nevada District Dismisses Baham Consumer Credit Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DENNIS BAHAM, et al., Plaintiffs v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01125-APG-VCF (D. Nev.), Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (i) granted Bayview's motion for leave to file supplemental authority, (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to amend; and (iii) granted Bayview's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs Baham, Chuck Reineck, and Jeanette Reineck filed a class action complaint against Bayview under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiffs allege that Bayview collected debts, specifically mortgage loans secured by real property, without a license issued by the Nevada Department of Business & Industry Financial Institutions Division. According to the complaint, Bayview engaged in activity to collect on mortgages before it became a licensed collection agency in Nevada on Jan. 18, 2019. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and allege violations of the FDCPA and Nevada Revised Statutes Section 649.370. Bayview moves to dismiss the Section 649.370 claim because (1) Chapter 649 does not create a private right of action; (2) the chapter allows Bayview to cure a licensing violation, which it did; and (3) the complaint does not plausibly allege Bayview engaged in debt collection activity as to any of the plaintiffs' mortgages. As to the FDCPA claim, Bayview argues that under controlling authority, attempting to collect a debt without a license is not a per se violation of the FDCPA, and the complaint does not plausibly allege any other violation. Finally, Bayview argues that because the plaintiffs fail to state a substantive claim, their declaratory relief claim also must fail. The Plaintiffs respond that unlicensed debt collection activity violates the FDCPA. They also contend that there is a private right of action under Chapter 649, but to the extent there is not, then the FDCPA claim should still survive. They contend some remedy must exist, under either federal or state law, to address Bayview's unlicensed debt collection activity. Although the Plaintiffs briefly argue a private right of action exists under state law, they nevertheless seek leave to amend to make clear that their claim arises only under the FDCPA, not Nevada law. After briefing on the motion to dismiss was complete, Bayview moved for leave to file supplemental authority in the form of the Supreme Court of Nevada's decision Benko v. Quality Loan Service Corporation. In Benko, the Supreme Court of Nevada held that trustees conducting nonjudicial foreclosures do not need to be licensed under Chapter 649. Bayview argues that the case shows it was not required to obtain a license in the first place and thus could not have violated either Nevada law or the FDCPA. The plaintiffs respond that Benko is distinguishable because that case involved a trustee conducting a nonjudicial foreclosure sale, but Bayview is not a foreclosure trustee. Instead, Bayview is a mortgage servicer who directed the trustee to conduct the foreclosure. Judge Gordon holds that the Plaintiffs' complaint alleges only that Bayview conducted collection activity in Nevada without a license by sending requests for payment and by initiating foreclosure. But that is all that the complaint alleges. There are no factual allegations that Bayview's communications or conduct otherwise violated the FDCPA. Because the Plaintiffs allege only a state law licensing violation, they have failed to allege a violation of the FDCPA. Accordingly, they also have not alleged a basis for declaratory relief under the FDCPA. The Judge therefore grants Bayview's motion to dismiss the FDCPA claim. The Judge also denies the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend because the proposed amended complaint contains the same defect as the original complaint in that it asserts only a state law licensing violation. Ordinarily, the Judge would grant leave for the Plaintiffs to amend to allege facts that would state an FDCPA claim. However, the Plaintiffs were on notice of the defect in their original complaint through Bayview's motion and they did not allege facts in their proposed amended complaint that would show an FDCPA violation. Presumably, if the Plaintiffs had such facts, they would have alleged them in the proposed amended complaint. The Plaintiffs also do not contend in their opposition or motion to dismiss that additional facts exist. The Judge therefore dismisses their FDCPA claim with prejudice. The Judge has previously ruled that there is no private right of action under Chapter 649. The Plaintiffs have not persuaded him that he should reach a different conclusion in the case. Although the Plaintiffs contend it leaves them without a remedy for unlicensed collection activity, they may file a complaint against Bayview with the Commissioner of Financial Institutions, which Baham did. Remedies include the Commissioner suing to restrain the practices or impose administrative fines, as well as potential criminal liability for the violator. Because there is no private right of action under Chapter 649, the Judge dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claim under Section 649.370 and any related request for declaratory relief. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gordon granted Bayview's motion for leave to file supplemental authority. The Judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion to amend. The Judge granted Bayview's motion to dismiss. The clerk of court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Bayview and against the Plaintiffs, and to close the case. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 20, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/JZMKFT from Leagle.com. Dennis Baham, Chuck J. Reineck & Jeanette J. Reineck, Plaintiffs, represented by Erik-Anthony W. Fox, Cogburn Law Offices & Jamie S. Cogburn, Cogburn Law Offices. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bronwyn F. Pollock, Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, Darren T. Brenner, Akerman LLP, Debra Bogo-Ernst -- dernst@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, Jamie K. Combs -- jamie.combs@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP & Natalie L. Winslow -- natalie.winslow@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP. BEST BUY: Misrepresents Insignia Power Banks' mAh, Robinson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyntasha Robinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BEST BUY CO., INC., Case No. 0:20-cv-01470 (D. Minn., June 26, 2020), is brought against Best Buy for misrepresenting its INSIGNIA portable chargers, also known as power banks. Ms. Robinson seeks redress for Best Buy's unlawful, unjust, unfair, and deceptive practices in misrepresenting the milliampere-hours ("mAh") of the Products and violating state law during the applicable statute of limitations period. Consumers, as a result of the modern lifestyle, are increasingly dependent on smart phones, tablets and laptop computers--portable electronic devices ("PEDs"). PEDs give consumers immediate access to information and instant communication with colleagues, friends, and loved ones. Like any electronic device, PEDs require power. Consumers must periodically recharge their PEDs, which may be difficult if no outlet is available. To solve that problem, companies like Defendant Best Buy Co. markets and sells portable chargers, also known as power banks. A power bank's ability to charge PEDs is measured in milliampere-hours ("mAh"). A power bank with a higher mAh has an enhanced ability to recharge PEDs compared to a power bank with a lower mAh--in short, it promises to deliver more "juice." Accordingly, consumers prefer and are willing to pay more for power banks with a higher mAh. Best Buy, under its own brand, INSIGNIA, markets and sells a variety of models of power banks (which do not materially differ except to the extent they have different mAh ratings). The various Product models Best Buy sells include the Insignia Portable Chargers with mAh representations: 2,600, 8,000, 12,000, 15,000 and 20,000. Apart from the represented mAh amounts, there is no material difference among Best Buy's Products, the Plaintiff says. Best Buy is a key player in the power bank market, according to the complaint. The market generates more than $15 billion in sales each year for the industry as a whole. For profit and a higher market share, Best Buy exploits consumers' preferences for power banks with higher mAh. Best Buy intentionally deceives consumers by misrepresenting the amount of power its Products can transfer to PEDs. Best Buy advertises its Products as delivering more mAh than its Products are able to provide. The Plaintiff relied on Best Buy's misrepresentations when she bought one of Best Buy's Products: the INSIGNIA 8,000 mAh Portable Charger. Best Buy advertises the INSIGNIA 8,000 as having 8,000 mAh; however the INSIGNIA 8,000 never could and cannot deliver 8,000 mAh. As a result, Ms. Robinson paid a premium for a Best Buy Product that did not work as represented and warranted, says the complaint. Best Buy is an international retailer of consumer electronics, who manufactures, markets, and distributes for sale nationwide a number of models of Power Banks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Phone: (612) 594-5933 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 Email: emdrake@bm.net jhashmall@bm.net - and - William F. Cash III, Esq. Matthew D. Schultz, Esq. Brenton J. Goodman, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone 850-435-7059 Email: bcash@levinlaw.com mschultz@levinlaw.com bgoodman@levinlaw.com - and - D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone 914-298-3290 Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com BEYOND MEAT: Lead Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------- Block Investments Corporation has been appointed Lead Plaintiff, the law firm of Bernstein Liebhard LLP has been named Lead Counsel, and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP Liaison Counsel in a securities class action against Beyond Meat, Inc. The case is captioned as Larry Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00963 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2020). Block Investments filed an amended complaint on July 1. Other parties who sought to be appointed as lead counsel were: Elizabeth F. Matthews; the Beyond Meat Investor Group; Janet Harnash, Sheldon Harnash, Karen Jerome, Ronald Jerome and Zachary Madle; and Tony Ho, KK Limited, Frida Kazarian and Charlemagne Ruiz. Beyond Meat, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has not yet entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff or lead counsel in a putative securities class action suit initiated by Larry Tran. On January 30, 2020, Larry Tran, a purported shareholder of Beyond Meat, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Beyond Meat and two of the Company's executive officers, the Company's President and CEO, Ethan Brown, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Mark Nelson. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and is premised on allegedly false or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, related to the Company's public disclosures regarding the Company's ongoing litigation with Don Lee Farms during the proposed class period of May 2, 2019 to January 27, 2020. The Company said, "The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted." Beyond Meat, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is one of the fastest growing food companies in the United States, offering a portfolio of revolutionary plant-based meats. The company is based in El Segundo, California. BEYOND MEAT: Massaro Class Suit Over Spam Text Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Beyond Meat, Inc. continues to face putative class action lawsuit initiated by Nazrin Massaro, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2020. On March 18, 2020, Nazrin Massaro filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against Beyond Meat and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. ("PETA"). The lawsuit asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and alleges that PETA sent unsolicited text message advertisements promoting the Company's products to the putative class members in violation of consumers' privacy rights. The lawsuit further alleges that PETA sent the text messages at the direction, and/or under the control, of Beyond Meat. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages on behalf of herself and the putative class members. The Company said it believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted. Beyond Meat, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is one of the fastest growing food companies in the United States, offering a portfolio of revolutionary plant-based meats. The company is based in El Segundo, California. BOK FINANCIAL: Municipal Securities Suit Underway in Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------- BOK Financial Corporation 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's wholly owned subsidiary bank, BOKF, NA, continues to defend a putative class action in Oklahoma initiated by bondholders representing a set of municipal securities. On March 14, 2017, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by bondholders in a second putative class action representing a different set of municipal securities. The bondholders in this action allege two individuals purchased facilities from the principals who are the subject of the SEC New Jersey proceedings by means of the fraudulent sale of $60 million of municipal securities for which BOKF, NA also served as indenture trustee. The bondholders allege BOKF, NA failed to disclose that the seller of the purchased facilities had engaged in the conduct complained of in the New Jersey action. BOKF, NA properly performed all duties as indenture trustee of this second set of municipal securities, timely commenced proceedings against the issuer of the securities when default occurred, is cooperating with the SEC in actions against the two principals, is not a target of the SEC proceedings, and has been advised by counsel that BOKF, NA has valid defenses to the claims of these bondholders. BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. BOKF NA: Court Denies Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of Walker Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BERKLEY V. WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BOKF, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION doing business as BANK OF ALBUQUERQUE, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00810-JCH-JHR (D. N.M.), Judge Judith C. Herrera of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied Walker's Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum of Law in Support. Mr. Walker resides in Albuquerque and has maintained a checking account with Defendant BOKF. The account is governed by a Deposit Agreement. The "overdraft fee" referred to in the Deposit Agreement is $34.50, and it is a fee on the transaction that caused the account to be overdrawn. If a customer's account remains overdrawn for over five consecutive days, BOKF then charges a so-called "extended overdraft fee" of $6.50 every business day that the account remains overdrawn. On Jan. 19, 2017, Mr. Walker overdrew his checking account, so BOKF assessed an initial overdraft fee of $34.50. After five days of a negative account balance, BOKF started assessing the $6.50 extended overdraft fee for every business day until March 17, 2017, resulting in a total of $234 extended overdraft fees. During this period, Mr. Walker's negative account fluctuated between $59.81 and $293.81. On Aug. 22, 2018, Mr. Walker filed a class action complaint in the Court. Mr. Walker alleges that BOKF "advanced" funds to him for failing to rectify his account within five days, thereby creating a "debt" on which he paid "interest." Because BOKF can charge accountholders like Mr. Walker a maximum annual interest rate of 6% on any extension of credit or a loan, BOKF's extended overdraft fees effectively charged an annualized interest rate of between 501% and 2,464% on Mr. Walker's account, or 83-times what BOKF may legally charge under the NBA. Mr. Walker contends that extended overdraft charges of this kind have become a multibillion-dollar source of profit for national banks, operating under the guise as "fees" when in reality they are usurious interest. He asserted that his lawsuit was properly maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and proffered a class definition as follows: All BOKF customers in the United States, who, within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of the action incurred one or more extended overdraft fees. On Sept. 20, 2018, BOKF moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which the Court granted in a Memorandum Opinion and Order. In the Court's Order, the Court discussed how, in 2007, BOFK's federal regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) concluded that a national bank did not charge its California customers "interest" as used in the OCC's regulations when the bank charged a flat excess overdraft charge to customers whose accounts remained overdrawn after an initial overdraft fee was imposed. (citing and discussing OCC Interpretive Letter No. 1082, 2007 WL 5393636 at *1 & n.3 (May 17, 2007) (2007 Letter)) Within 28-days of entry of final judgment, Mr. Walker moved to reconsider, contending that the United States Supreme Court's case Kisor v. Wilkie, represented an intervening change in Auer deference -- that is, the doctrine that federal courts should defer "to agencies' reasonable readings of genuinely ambiguous regulations." According to Mr. Walker, the Court did not properly analyze whether the OCC's regulation defining interest, was genuinely ambiguous. Mr. Walker believes that a proper application of Kisor will show that Section 7.4001(a) is not ambiguous, and he therefore contends that the regulation's plain language of interest covers extended overdraft fees. The matter before the Court is Walker's Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum of Law in Support. Mr. Walker contends that the Court did not analyze whether Section 7.4001(a) is genuinely ambiguous under Kisor. Walker argues that the regulation's definition of interest -- any payment compensating a creditor for an extension of credit -- is in fact not ambiguous. Walker reasons that BOKF created a "debt," by advancing overdraft funds, thereby making BOKF a "creditor," and him a "debtor" within the meaning of the regulation. Judge Herrera notes that even though Mr. Walker characterizes Kisor as an intervening change in the law requiring reconsideration, the Court has already ruled on (and rejected) his central argument that the creditor-debtor relationship is reversed in the context of extended overdraft fees. And most importantly, Mr. Walker overlooks that the Court did not rest its decision exclusively on the 2007 Letter, the Judge further notes. In fact, far from it. In its Order, the Court discussed at length how it was joining the majority of federal courts that have considered the issue of whether extended overdraft fees are interest within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. Section 85 and 12 C.F.R. Section 7.4001, and concluded that they are not. The Court explained in its Order how extended overdraft fees are incurred as part of an accountholder's maintenance of a deposit account, and do not arise from a credit transaction such that the fees are interest. In other words, the Court came to its conclusion by analyzing the character of extended overdraft fees and explained how they "lack the hallmarks of credit extensions." A look at the federal cases relied on by the Court counters Mr. Walker's claim that the Court treated the 2007 Letter as "dispositive." Some of those courts did not rely on the 2007 Letter at all. Other courts relied on the letter for its persuasive value without giving it deference. The point of all this is to say that even assuming, arguendo, that the Court would have committed error by giving the OCC's 2007 Letter deference, Mr. Walker overlooks that the Court did not rest its decision exclusively on the OCC's 2007 Letter. While that letter was one legal ingredient in the Court's analysis, the Court also rested its decision on a bulwark of federal cases holding that extended overdraft fees are not interest, and therefore Mr. Walker is incorrect that the Court treated the letter as dispositive. Judge Herrera concludes that Kisor does not permit Mr. Walker to renew his argument that overdraft fees reverse the relationship between the bank and the account holder, and therefore such fees are interest under 12 C.F.R. Section 7.4001(a). The Court specifically considered and rejected this premise for reasons apart from the 2007 Letter. Therefore, the Judge denied Walker's Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum of Law in Support. A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/KNZtXK from Leagle.com. Berkley V Walker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC & Micheal W. Ovca -- movca@edelson.com -- Edelson PC. BOKF, National Association, doing business as Bank of Albuquerque, N.A., Defendant, represented by Benjamin F. Feuchter, HInkle Shanor, LLP, 400 Pennsylvania, Suite 640, Roswell, NM 88201, J. Michael Medina, Frederic Dorwart Lawyers PLLC, pro hac vice & Sarah Poston, Frederic Dorwart Lawyers PLLC, 124 E 4th St, Tulsa, OK 74103-5027, pro hac vice. BOTTEGA VENETA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOTTEGA VENETA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-01215-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal., June 17, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website, https://www.bottegaveneta.com/us is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Veneta Bottega Inc was founded in 2001. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of men's, women's and children's footwear. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bobby Saadian, Esq. Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Reaches Stipulation to Dismiss Atkins Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Parties in the class action styled, Leroy and Geraldine Atkins v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, Brighthouse Financial, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, filed November 18, 2019), have filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, according to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. Plaintiffs have filed a purported class action lawsuit against Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, Brighthouse Financial, Inc., MetLife, Inc. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company relating to the pension closeout business. Plaintiffs allege that annuity benefits were due but have not been paid. Plaintiffs also allege they were not able to obtain information as to the group annuity contract and the benefit other than what was on a benefit election form. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all annuitants and their designated beneficiaries who were due annuity payments pursuant to group annuity contracts purchased from defendants by sponsors of employer provided defined benefit plans. Plaintiffs allege the defendants failed to timely contact, notify and pay overdue annuity benefits and interest to retirees. The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (contract and tort), unjust enrichment, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty. In March 2020, Brighthouse Life Insurance Company and Brighthouse Financial, Inc. filed a joint motion to dismiss. In April 2020, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company offers a range of individual annuities and individual life insurance products. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Holdings, LLC, which is a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. C.F. GOLLOTT: O'Brien Lawsuit Remanded to State Court ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATT O'BRIEN, STACIE O'BRIEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A O'BRIEN CRAB COMPANY, v. C.F. GOLLOTT AND SON SEAFOOD, INC., D'IBERVILLE COLD STORAGE, INC., GOLLOTT BOAT, LLC, BILOXI DOCK AND ICE, LLC, GOLLOTT INVESTMENTS, LLC, AND TIGER PASS SEAFOOD, LLC, Civil Action No. 19-13204 (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eatern District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the matter to state court. The case arises from a business dispute. O'Brien operated a commercial seafood dock in Venice, Louisiana. O'Brien alleges he was approached by a representative of Gollott with a business proposal, to which O'Brien agreed. Under the proposal, O'Brien and Gollott created a limited liability corporation entitled "Tiger Pass Seafood, LLC." The O'Briens and Gollott each took a 50% ownership interest in Tiger Pass. Gollott supplied the necessary capital to Tiger Pass, and the O'Briens were to be in charge of the dock's day-to-day operations. Shortly after the formation of Tiger Pass, the BP Deepwater Horizon spill occurred. The spill had catastrophic effects on the seafood industry in Louisiana. Following the spill, the relationship between Gollott and O'Brien became contentious. Gollott wanted Tiger Pass to close in the wake of the spill, but O'Brien insisted on remaining open for business. In 2011, the parties entered an agreement under which O'Brien would sell his interest in Tiger Pass, in exchange for which he would receive 10% of the any BP settlement above $500,000 attributable to 2010-2011. Both the Plaintiffs and Tiger Pass filed claims against BP following the Deepwater Horizon spill. Both were originally part of the Class Action Settlement Agreement approved by the Court in MDL 2179, the MDL that oversaw the various lawsuits against BP following the Deepwater Horizon spill. The Plaintiffs ultimately resolved their claims in the class through the Court Supervised Settlement Program. Tiger Pass, however, opted out of the MDL settlement class, reached a separate settlement with BP through a neutral, and voluntarily dismissed its claim against BP. Tiger Pass received a $2 million settlement for its claims. The Plaintiffs assert that Tiger Pass and Gollott falsely structured [their] claim to BP so as to enhance its claim to the detriment of O'Brien. The Plaintiffs allege that Tiger Pass and Gollott asked for and used "trip tickets" of the O'Brien Crab Company, which demonstrate past sales of seafood purchases from commercial fisherman, as Tiger Pass had not operated long enough to have trip tickets of its own. They further allege that these trip tickets were used to support Tiger Pass' claim against BP, as they were used as evidence of lost profits. But the Plaintiffs maintain that Tiger Pass had no lost sales as it selected to shut down between 2012 and 2017. The O'Briens therefore claim that the $2 million should rightfully be paid to the O'Brien Crab Co. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs allege that Gollott took actions such as withholding capital and equipment from Tiger Pass, either to force O'Brien to agree to shut down Tiger Pass, or to sell his 50% interest. They further assert that when Tiger Pass ultimately settled with BP for $2 million, it improperly prorated that amount over the years 2010-2017, reducing the amount attributable to 2010-2011 to less than $500,000. This had the effect of wiping out any benefit O'Brien would receive from the settlement, as his contract with Tiger Pass entitled him to only a percentage of the settlement attributable to 2010-2011 that exceeded $500,000. The Plaintiffs claim that Gollott and Tiger Pass therefore breached the contract by which O'Brien sold his ownership interest in Tiger Pass. The Defendants removed the case to federal court. The Plaintiffs then filed a motion to remand, arguing that their claims sound solely in state law. They also filed a motion to amend their complaint in which they sought, among other things, to withdraw their first claim -- this motion was granted. The Plaintiffs brought two claims in their initial complaint: (1) a claim that Tiger Pass' BP settlement was fraudulently based on O'Brien's food tickets, and therefore should have been paid to the Plaintiffs, and (2) a claim, in the alternative, that the Defendants breached the contract between O'Brien and Gollott by not properly allocating the $2 million settlement across 2011-2017. The parties agree that the second claim of breach is solely a state law claim and does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. And although the Plaintiffs have since amended their complaint to withdraw the first claim, a court looks at the claims in the state court petition as they existed at the time of removal when determining whether federal jurisdiction is present for the purposes of removal. The Court therefore considers whether the Plaintiffs' first claim in their state court petition at the time of removal provides a basis for federal jurisdiction. Because no federal issue was necessarily raised at the time of removal, Judge Vance holds that the federal court lacks jurisdiction and must remand the case to state court. Absent a federal issue, the Judge need not reach the Defendants' arguments regarding whether such an issue would be in dispute, substantial, or capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. In order to determine whether an award of attorneys' fees is appropriate, the Court considers whether the Defendant had objectively reasonable grounds to believe the removal was legally proper. The Defendants had an objectively reasonable basis to remove the case based on the authorities cited in their Notice of Removal and their oppositions to the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. While the Defendants' arguments against removal are ultimately unpersuasive, they are not so unreasonable as to warrant an award of attorneys' fees to the Plaintiff, the Court opines. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vance granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 20, 2020 Order & Reasons is available at https://is.gd/2YRKWt from Leagle.com. Matt O'Brien, Individually & Stacie T. O'Brien, Individually, Plaintiffs, represented by Edward F. Kohnke, IV, Edward F. Kohnke, IV, Attorney at Law, Daniel John Dysart -- ddysart@fishmanhaygood.com -- Fishman Haygood, LLP & Richard Villere Kohnke, Richard V. Kohnke, Attorney at Law. C.F. Gollott and Son Seafood, Inc., D'Iberville Cold Storage, Inc., Gollott Boat, LLC, Biloxi Dock and Ice, LLC, Gollott Investments, LLC, Tiger Pass Seafood, LLC & D'Iberville Dock & Ice, LLC, Defendants, represented by Jeremy T. Grabill -- jeremy.grabill@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Arthur Raymond Kraatz -- arthur.kraatz@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP & Michael Franklin Held -- michael.held@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP. CALIFORNIA VEGETABLE: Sued by Rechner for Not Giving COBRA Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Coral Rechner, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA VEGETABLE SPECIALTIES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01281-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal., June 26, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, by failing to provide the Plaintiff with a timely COBRA notice that complies with the law. The Defendant's failure to provide a timely COBRA notice caused the Plaintiff economic injuries in the form of lost health insurance and created economic barriers to the Plaintiff's ability to access medical care, according to the complaint. Additionally, the failure to provide a timely COBRA notice caused the Plaintiff to avoid doctor visits, for fear of the costs associated with having to pay for medical needs out-of-pocket. The Plaintiff adds that Defendant California Vegetable Specialties, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the California Vegetable Specialties' group health benefit plan, has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan 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 within 44 days. Simply put, the Plaintiff says, the Defendant's failure to provide a timely COBRA notice violates the law. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to provide a timely COBRA notification to allow her an opportunity to make an informed decision within the statutory time-period about her healthcare options for her and her family. As a result of this violation, which threatens Class Members' ability to maintain their health coverage, the Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and other appropriate relief as set forth herein and provided by law. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant and received health coverage from the Defendant, and was, thus, a participant/beneficiary in the Plan before her termination on November 22, 2019. The Defendant is a California corporation with a principal office in Solano County, California, and is the plan sponsor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.283.3814 Fax: 773.496.8617 Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 300 S. Biscayne Blvd., #2704 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com CASPER SLEEP: Jankowiak Sues Over Stock Trading Below IPO Price --------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD JANKOWIAK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated 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, Case No. 652507/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., June 16, 2020), is brought on behalf of all persons, who purchased Casper common stock in or traceable to the Company's February 7, 2020 initial public offering, asserting strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against Casper, the underwriters for the IPO, and certain Casper officers and directors. For the years 2018, 2017, and 2016, the Company claimed to have achieved net revenue of $357.9 million, $250.9 million, and $169.1 million, respectively. As the Company expanded its business it also incurred losses, incurring a net loss of $92.1 million and $73.4 million in 2018 and 2017, respectively. However, in the lead-up to the IPO, Casper claimed to have significantly improved its profit margins, placing it on a path to profitability, according to the complaint. The Company stated that it had achieved 50.7% in gross margins for the three months ended September 30, 2019, up from 42.8% for the year ended December 31, 2016. In addition, Casper maintained that its core operations were profitable. The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement for the IPO was negligently prepared, and that it failed to disclose that (i) Casper was in the midst of changing an important distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin in the first quarter of 2020 alone; and (ii) that Casper was selling a glut of old and outdated mattress inventory at steeply discounted clearance prices, further impairing the Company's profitability. As of market close on June 12, 2020, Casper stock was trading at just $8.14 per share, 32% below the IPO price. Plaintiff Donald Jankowiak purchased Casper common stock in and traceable to the IPO and has been damaged thereby. Casper manufactures mattresses, sleep aids and other sleep-related products and services. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, 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 bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman, 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 eitank@bgandg.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Ealy-Simon Seeks Off-the-Clock Pay for PSRs -------------------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE EALY-SIMON and KRISTIN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00521 (M.D. Tenn., June 22, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant requires the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated Patient Service Representatives (PSRs) to perform compensable work tasks before and after their shift s and during their unpaid meal periods, but compensates them only for the time they are connected to the Defendant's phone system and are available to make/take customer calls, meaning that they are only paid for time spent on the phones and are not paid for any time spent turning on their computers and launching the computer networks, software programs, applications and phone systems necessary for the performance of their work. The Defendant knew or could have easily determined how long it takes for PSRs to complete their off-the-clock work, and the Defendant could have properly compensated them for this work, but deliberately chose not to. As a result of these policies, the Plaintiffs are not being paid for all time worked, including overtime. Plaintiff Ealy-Simon was assigned to work as a PSR for the Defendant at its call center facility in Port St. Lucie, Florida from September 2019 to March 2020. Plaintiff Wilson has been directly employed by the Defendant as a PSR at its call center facility in Port St. Lucie, Florida since November 2019. Change Healthcare Operations, LLC operates an outsourced call center for large physician groups, hospitals and health systems, with a principal office at 3055 Lebanon Pike, Suite 1000, Nashville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com - and – Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Rod M. Johnston, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com rjohnston@sommerspc.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Amended Complaint Filed in "Alvarez" ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as Alvarez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04095-KM-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge James B. Clark, III entered an order on June 18, 2020, terminating as moot any remaining pending motions and allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Carmen Alvarez and Asher Guni, the plaintiffs, filed their amended complaint on June 30. The Court said, "As the Defendants acknowledge, the Plaintiff moved to amend well within the deadline set forth in the Pretrial Scheduling Order, and while the expansion of the asserted class may increase the Defendants' costs and fees, the Defendants have failed to explain how such an increase would be so 'dramatic' as to cause undue prejudice. Accordingly, because this matter is still in its early stages and because the Defendants have failed to show any undue prejudice which would result from permitting the proposed amendments, the Court declines to find that the Plaintiff has unduly delayed in seeking to amend." The Plaintiff brings this putative class action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law seeking unpaid overtime compensation. The lawsuit, filed against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC, alleges that Chipotle violated the law by misclassifying its managerial apprentices as exempt from overtime and failing to pay them premium overtime wages on that basis. In an April 2020 Scheduling Order, the Court said it will conduct a Telephone status Conference on July 29, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge James B. Clark. Chipotle is an American chain of fast casual restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style burritos.[CC] CLECO CORPORATE: Class Action over 2016 Merger Underway ------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit related to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC's merger agreement in 2016 is still ongoing, 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. In connection with the 2016 Merger, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the 2016 Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the 2016 Merger. The petitions also alleged that Como 1, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and, in some cases, certain of the investors in Como 1 either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions sought various remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys' fees and expenses. The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish are captioned as follows: * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014), * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014), * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014). In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted in November 2014. In December 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel, and dismissed the investors in Cleco Partners as defendants, per agreement of the parties. Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish were captioned as follows: * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014), * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21, 2014). In December 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. In January 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. In February 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. By operation of the December 2014 order of the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, the Butler, Cashen, and Creative Life Services actions were consolidated into the actions pending in Rapides Parish. In February 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs in the consolidated action seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement. The District Court heard and denied the plaintiffs' motion. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the second amended petition in July 2015. The LPSC voted to approve the 2016 Merger before the Court could consider the plaintiffs' peremptory exceptions. In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively. The fourth amended petition, which remains the operative petition and was filed after the 2016 Merger closed, eliminated the request for preliminary and permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a defendant. The defendants filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the fourth amended Petition. In September 2016, and the District Court granted the exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action and dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal. In December 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order reversing and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's decision. The writ was denied in March 2018 and the parties are engaged in discovery in the District Court. In November 2018, Cleco filed renewed exceptions of no cause of action and res judicata, seeking to dismiss all claims. On December 21, 2018, the court dismissed Cleco Partners and Cleco Holdings as defendants per the agreement of the parties, leaving as the only remaining defendants certain former executive officers and independent directors. The District Court denied the defendants' exceptions on January 14, 2019. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class was scheduled for August 26, 2019; however, prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement to certify a limited class. On September 7, 2019, the District Court certified a class limited to shareholders who voted against, abstained from voting, or did not vote on the 2016 Merger. The Company said, "Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions." Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and serves approximately 291,000 customers in Louisiana through its retail business; and supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and Mississippi. The company was formerly known as Cleco Corporation and changed its name to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC in April 2016. Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was founded in 1934 and is based in Pineville, Louisiana. COLLINS MOBILE: Staff Seeks Pay Over Denied Meal Breaks ------------------------------------------------------- Sabrena Baker and Christina Settles, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Collins Mobile, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01996 (S.D. Ohio, April 20, 2020), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages or interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, for willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Collins Mobile LLC -- http://www.collinsmobilellc.com/about-- operate T-Mobile retail locations throughout the Midwest. Baker was employed as a mobile expert or store lead primarily performing customer service responsibilities at its Pickerington, Ohio store while Settles worked as a mobile expert at its Oxford and Fairfield, Ohio. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are regularly unable to take a meal break but are still deducted 30 minutes from their daily pay. Settles spent approximately 45 minutes traveling from Oxford to Fairfield each day she worked at both locations but was not compensated for this time. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43207 Phone: (614) 949-1181 Fax: (614) 386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com CORE HOME SECURITY: Alvarez Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Alvarez, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Core Home Security, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-21842 (S.D. Fla., May 4, 2020), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Core Home Security operates as Smart Home Security. It sells, installs and maintains home security systems. It utilizes prerecorded messages to place calls to unsuspecting consumers on their cellular telephones for the purpose of selling its goods and services. At no point in time did Alvarez provide them with his express written consent to be contacted using an automated dialer. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Directors Still Defend Voigt Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2020 that certain of the Company's directors continue to face a putative class suit initiated by Gary D. Voigt in Delaware. On November 14, 2018, an individual stockholder, Gary D. Voigt, filed a putative class action Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Clayton Dubilier & Rice, LLC ("CD&R"), Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund VIII, L.P. ("CD&R Fund VIII"), and certain directors of the Company. Voigt purports to assert claims on behalf of himself, on behalf of a class of other similarly situated stockholders of the Company, and derivatively on behalf of the Company, the nominal defendant. An Amended Complaint was filed on April 11, 2019. The Amended Complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against CD&R Fund VIII and CD&R, and for breach of fiduciary duty against twelve director defendants in connection with the Merger. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint and, on February 10, 2020, the court denied the motions except as to four of the director defendants. Voigt seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc., formerly NCI Building Systems, Inc., incorporated on December 23, 1991, is a manufacturer and marketer of metal products in North America. The Company's operating segments include Engineered building systems, Metal components, Insulated Metal Panels and Metal coil coating. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina. COSAN LIMITED: Civil Class Action over Waste Disposal Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ Cosan Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the civil class action No. 0000749-68.2011.8.14.0130, for environmental damages related to alleged irregular waste disposal in a landfill located in the Municipality of Ulianopolis, in the state of Para, Brazil, is still stayed. Cosan is being sued by the Municipality of Ulianopolis, by means of the civil class action, for environmental damages related to alleged irregular waste disposal. Eight other companies are involved in the same lawsuit, and the plaintiff intends to declare all of them as jointly liable for restoring the environmental damage involved therein. The plaintiff seeks R$179.8 million but the specific amount needed to restore the damage can only be estimated at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. It is also important to highlight that more than 50 companies are involved in the same matter by means of other lawsuits and a civil investigation is currently being held by the state of Para's Public Prosecutor's Office. Therefore, it is expected by some of these companies that any settlement or condemnation in this matter should comprise all of them. The lawsuit is currently suspended due to a plea from the Public Prosecutor's Office. According to the Company's information, the amount under discussion in these proceedings is R$179.8 million, classified as a possible risk of loss. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Cosan Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in fuel and natural gas distribution, logistics, lubricant, sugar and ethanol businesses primarily in Brazil and internationally. The company was incorporated in 2007 and is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil. COSAN LIMITED: Parties Still Await Appointment of Legal Expert -------------------------------------------------------------- Cosan Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that parties in the Environmental civil class action (0000952-81.2013.8.19.0207) are awaiting the appointment of a legal expert in order to proceed with the production and presentation of evidence. Cosan Lubrificantes e Especialidades S.A. (CLE) and ExxonMobil Quimica are being sued by the Prosecutor's Office of the state of Rio de Janeiro in connection with soil contamination at CLE's operational complex, located in Rio de Janeiro's Ilha do Governador neighborhood. The Prosecutor's Office of the state of Rio de Janeiro is seeking damages from both companies in an amount of R$55.6 million, as well as the imposition on the companies of an obligation to remediate the damage caused, based on the joint liability provided for un Brazilian environmental law. The parties are awaiting the appointment of a legal expert in order to proceed with the production and presentation of evidence. Cosan said, "As of December 31, 2019, the amount involved was R$55.6 million. The risk of loss was classified as possible." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Cosan Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in fuel and natural gas distribution, logistics, lubricant, sugar and ethanol businesses primarily in Brazil and internationally. The company was incorporated in 2007 and is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil. COSAN LIMITED: Suit Against CLE Ongoing --------------------------------------- Cosan Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Environmental civil class action (008531-48.2019.8.14.0130) against Cosan Lubrificantes e Especialidades S.A. (CLE), is ongoing. Cosan Lubrificantes e Especialidades S.A. (CLE) is being sued by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the state of Para for environmental damages related to the alleged irregular disposal of waste in a landfill located in the city of Ulianopolis, in the state of Para. The Public Prosecutor's Office is seeking damages in an amount of R$288.9 million, as well as the imposition on CLE of an obligation to remediate the damage caused. At the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office, the judicial authorities of the state of Para ordered that the state of Para provide copies of all existing tax invoices between the Company and the landfill owner (CBB – USPAM). CLE has not yet been summoned in this action. Cosan said, "Given that we have not yet received a summons, the risk of loss and amount involved cannot be estimated at this stage." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Cosan Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in fuel and natural gas distribution, logistics, lubricant, sugar and ethanol businesses primarily in Brazil and internationally. The company was incorporated in 2007 and is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil. COSAN LIMITED: Suit v. CLE in Sao Jose dos Pinhais Still Suspended ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cosan Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Environmental civil class action (0003982-28.2002.8.16.0035) against Cosan Lubrificantes e Especialidades S.A. (CLE) is still suspended. Cosan Lubrificantes e Especialidades S.A. (CLE), along with many other companies, is being sued by the municipality of Sao Jose dos Pinhais, state of Parana, in connection with soil contamination that occurred at the facilities of Recobem Ind. e Com. de Vern. Ltda, a company which is now bankrupt and was the owner of the property where the disposals which allegedly resulted in soil contamination were made. The municipality of Sao Jose dos Pinhais is seeking damages in a total amount of R$30.9 million, as well as the imposition on the companies of an obligation to remediate the damage caused. The lawsuit is currently pending the presentation of evidence. However, it has been suspended since March 2019. Cosan said, "As of December 31, 2019, the amount involved was R$30.9 million. The risk of loss was classified as possible." Cosan Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in fuel and natural gas distribution, logistics, lubricant, sugar and ethanol businesses primarily in Brazil and internationally. The company was incorporated in 2007 and is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil. COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Unit Continues to Defend Tabizon Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Covenant Transportation 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 a company subsidiary remains a defendant in the class action suit initiated by Richard Tabizon. The company's subsidiary Covenant Transport, Inc. ("Covenant Transport") is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on November 9, 2018, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Richard Tabizon (a California resident and former driver) who is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class action. The complaint asserts that the time period covered by the lawsuit is from October 31, 2014 to the present and alleges claims for failure to properly pay drivers for rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and/or reimbursement of business related expenses, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to pay proper minimum wage and overtime wages, failure to provide all wages due at termination, and other related wage and hour claims under the California Labor Code. Since the original filing date, the case has been removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California and subsequently the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee where the case is now pending. Covenant said, "We do not currently have enough information to make a reasonable estimate as to the likelihood, or amount of a loss, or a range of reasonably possible losses as a result of this claim, as such there have been no related accruals recorded as of March 31, 2020." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Covenant Transportation Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and brokerage services primarily in the continental United States. Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee. CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Court Stays Fondren Class Certification Motion ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, TROY FONDREN, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT MANAGEMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-393 (E.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on his motion for class certification On March 12, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, he filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In the motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., the Court suggested that class-action plaintiffs move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint. The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs. However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation. With the Court's Stay Order on the Class Certification Motion, the parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, the motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 20, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/vWde2Q from Leagle.com. Troy Fondren, Plaintiff, represented by Mark A. Eldridge -- meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP. CRESCENT CAPITAL: To Indemnify Alcentra D&Os in Investor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Crescent Capital BDC, Inc. has assumed indemnification responsibilities owed by Alcentra Capital Corporation to its former directors and officers with respect to stockholder class action complaints, according to Crescent Capital's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On December 23, 2019, stockholders of Alcentra Capital filed two virtually identical stockholder class action complaints purportedly on behalf of holders of the common stock of Alcentra Capital against the members of Alcentra Capital's board of directors and certain former Alcentra Capital officers, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the public stockholders of Alcentra Capital by commencing a sales process allegedly in response to certain actions by Stilwell Value Partners VII, Stilwell Activist Fund, Stilwell Activist Investments, and Stilwell Associates, and by omitting allegedly material information concerning the transaction, the resignation of certain directors of Alcentra, and the financial analysis and fairness opinion of Houlihan Lokey from the joint proxy statement filed with the SEC on December 11, 2019 as part of the registration statement relating to the Alcentra Acquisition. The complaints seek to recover compensatory damages for all losses resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On January 31, 2020, the Company completed a transaction to acquire Alcentra Capital Corporation in a cash and stock transaction. Crescent Capital said, "We assumed indemnification responsibilities owed by Alcentra to its former directors and officers with respect to this proceeding in connection with the Alcentra Acquisition. We believe that these claims are without merit." DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES: Facing Sherman Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Delphi Technologies, PLC said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company is a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled, Sherman v. Delphi Technologies PLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00385-RGA. Delphi Technologies PLC, a public limited company incorporated under the Laws of the Bailiwick of Jersey ("Delphi Technologies"), entered into a Transaction Agreement, dated as of January 28, 2020, as amended on May 6, 2020 (the "Transaction Agreement"), with BorgWarner Inc., a Delaware corporation ("BorgWarner"), pursuant to which BorgWarner, or one of its subsidiaries, will acquire Delphi Technologies in an all-stock transaction (the "transaction"). In connection with the transaction, six complaints have been filed by alleged shareholders of Delphi Technologies (collectively, the "Shareholder Complaints"): Sherman v. Delphi Technologies PLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00385-RGA ("Sherman Complaint") is a putative class action that was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; Costa v. Delphi Technologies PLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02363-PAC, Catalano v. Delphi Technologies PLC et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02520-PAC and Schlageter v. Delphi Technologies PLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02527-PAC are individual actions that were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; and Heinowski v. Delphi Technologies PLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10834-LVP-APP and Reyes v. Delphi Technologies PLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-11562-MAG-EAS are individual actions that were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Shareholder Complaints named as defendants Delphi Technologies and members of its board of directors and allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by omitting supposedly material information from the preliminary proxy statement filed by Delphi Technologies on March 11, 2020 with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") or the definitive proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed by Delphi Technologies on March 26, 2020 with the SEC, rendering these filings false and/or misleading. In addition, the Sherman Complaint named BorgWarner as a defendant with respect to its claim arising under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Shareholder Complaints seek, among other relief, an injunction against proceeding with the shareholder vote on the proposed transaction or consummating the proposed transaction absent corrective disclosures, damages and attorneys' and expert fees. Delphi Technologies and the other named defendants believe that the disclosures set forth in the Proxy Statement comply fully with all applicable law, that no supplemental disclosures are required under applicable law, and that the plaintiffs' allegations in each of the Shareholder Complaints are without merit. However, in an effort to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, to avoid nuisance and possible expense and transaction delays, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Delphi Technologies is making certain disclosures. Delphi Technologies and the other named defendants have denied, and continue to deny, that they have committed or assisted others in committing any violations of law, further deny all allegations that any disclosure was or is required or material, and expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they have complied with their respective legal obligations. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/3fYuduP. Delphi Technologies, PLC provides automotive parts and equipment. The Company develops, designs, and manufactures powertrain technologies for original equipment manufacturers. Delphi Technologies serves customers in the United Kingdom. DEUTSCHE BANK: Rock Capital Alleges Manipulation of Futures Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case ROCK CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., DEUTSCHE BANK AG, and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03638 (N.D. Ill., June 22, 2020) alleges Defendants' unlawful and intentional manipulation of U.S. Treasury Futures contracts and Eurodollar Futures contracts that trade on United States-based exchanges, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and its subsidiary the Chicago Board of Trade, during the period at least January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and the common law. According to the complaint, Defendants manipulated the prices of Treasury and Eurodollar Futures by employing a classic manipulative device known as "spoofing," whereby Defendants placed orders for Treasury and Eurodollar Futures to send false and illegitimate supply and demand signals to these markets and then canceled those orders before execution. As a result, Defendants caused Treasury and Eurodollar Futures prices to be artificial throughout the Class Period to financially benefit their trading positions at the expense of other investors, like Plaintiff and the Class. Defendants repeated the scheme throughout the Class Period and successfully manipulated Treasury and Eurodollar Futures prices to artificial levels throughout the Class Period. The case further alleges that such action is not the first time Defendants have used spoofing to manipulate futures prices. On January 29, 2018, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission fined Defendants $30 million for spoofing precious metals futures. Plaintiff Rock Capital Markets, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Rock Capital, a proprietary trading firm, was established in 2001 and traded thousands of Treasury Futures and Options during the Class Period and was harmed by the Defendants' spoofing alleged herein. Deutsche Bank AG is a German financial services company headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in New York, New York. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Fata, Esq. Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq. Brian P. O’Connell, Esq. Kaitlin Naughton, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-4882 E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com boconnell@caffertyclobes.com knaughton@caffertyclobes.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Raymond P. Girnys, Esq. Johnathan P. Seredynski, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com jseredynski@lowey.com DISH DBS: Appeal in Krakauer Class Action Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- DISH DBS Corporation 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 Krakauer Action, DISH Network L.L.C.'s January 2020 notice of appeal remains pending relating to the district court's orders on the claims administration process. A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action"). Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover US$400 in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA. On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and trebled the damages award to US$1,200 for each call made in violation of TCPA. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a US$61 million judgment in favor of the class. DISH Network L.L.C. appealed and on May 30, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. On October 15, 2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition for writ of certiorari, requesting that the United States Supreme Court agree to hear a further appeal, but it denied the petition on December 16, 2019. On January 21, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a second notice of appeal relating to the district court's orders on the claims administration process to identify, and disburse funds to, individual class members. DISH DBS said, "Our total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at December 31, 2018 was US$61 million, which was recorded in prior periods and was included in "Other accrued expenses" on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. During the third quarter 2019, the judgment was paid to the court. We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits." DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. DISH DBS: Retirement Fund Suit vs. DISH Network, et al. Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- DISH Network Corporation continues to defend itself in a putative class action lawsuit in Nevada styled, City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et al., according to DISH DBS Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. DISH DBS said, "On July 2, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported EchoStar stockholder in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada under the caption City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et al., Case No. A-19-797799-B. The lawsuit named as defendants Mr. [Charles] Ergen, the other members of the EchoStar Board, as well as EchoStar, certain of its officers, DISH Network and certain of DISH Network's and EchoStar's affiliates. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties in approving the transactions contemplated under the Master Transaction Agreement for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an unfair and conflicted process, and that EchoStar, DISH Network and certain other defendants aided and abetted such breaches. In the operative First Amended Complaint, filed on October 11, 2019, the plaintiff dropped as defendants the EchoStar board members other than Mr. Ergen. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including the issuance of additional DISH Network Class A Common Stock, monetary relief and other costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees." DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case, but cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. EMERALD HOLDING: Steamfitters Suit Challenges Rights Offering ------------------------------------------------------------- Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan, directly on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated public stockholders of Emerald Holding, Inc. v. EMERALD HOLDING, INC., KONSTANTIN GILIS, ANTHONY MUNK, MICHAEL ALICIA, TODD HYATT, LISA KLINGER, JEFF NAYLOR, and EMMANUELLE SKALA, Case No. 2020-0522- (Del. Ch., June 26, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The action concerns a planned rights offering by Emerald that allegedly will be backstopped by and will very likely provide unique benefits to the Company's controlling stockholder, Onex Corporation. Onex has controlled Emerald, or its predecessors, since 2013. Onex currently owns approximately 65.9% of the Company's common stock. The Plaintiff seeks an order preventing the Company from consummating the Rights Offering unless and until it discloses all material information to public stockholders so that they can make an informed decision regarding whether to participate in the Rights Offering. As a trade show organizer, Emerald's business has been meaningfully impacted, at least temporarily, by the global COVID-19 pandemic. For the purported purposes of creating liquidity, repaying outstanding indebtedness and positioning Emerald for recovery once the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, Emerald sought to raise capital. On June 10, 2020, Emerald announced that it would raise $400 million by selling $263.5 million worth of convertible preferred stock directly to Onex (the "Private Placement") and by conducting a rights offering that will allow public stockholders to purchase $136.6 million worth of convertible preferred stock (the "Rights Offering," and together with the Private Placement, the "Transactions"). Onex has agreed to backstop the Rights Offering by acquiring any preferred shares not purchased by public stockholders (the "Backstop"). Onex, which has two direct representatives on the Emerald board of directors and had the ability to select each director, was able to make the decision to Backstop the Rights Offering and participate in the Private Placement based on all material information known to the Company. However, the Company and the Defendants have deprived Emerald's public stockholders of that same information, preventing them from deciding on a fully informed basis whether to participate in the Rights Offering, the Plaintiff contends. Specifically, the Plaintiff avers, in soliciting stockholder participation in the Rights Offering, the Company has failed to disclose numerous categories of material information concerning, among other things: (i) the identities of all of the members of the special committee that approved the Transactions; (ii) the identities of the Special Committee's advisors and such advisors' prior engagements with and fees received from Onex; (iii) any financial projections or analyses concerning the value of the Company or the pricing and other terms of the Transactions; (iv) the process and negotiations that led to the Transactions; (v) the availability of other financing sources; and (vi) other material information to which Onex likely had access. By failing to disclose even the most basic information, the Company and the Board have created an unfair playing field with an asymmetry of information between groups of stockholders, according to the complaint. Whereas Onex had access to full information, the Company is asking stockholders to make a decision in a complete vacuum. The likely effect of this paucity of disclosures is to cause fewer public stockholders to participate in the Rights Offering, further benefiting Onex by increasing its ownership of the Company at financially advantageous terms. The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Emerald and has owned Emerald common stock. Emerald is an operator of business-to-business trade shows in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 573-2540 - and - Domenico Minerva, Esq. John Vielandi, Esq. David MacIsaac, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 - and - Jeremy Friedman, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Phone: (888) 529-1108 ESTEE LAUDER: Bilello et al. Sue Over Mismanaged 401(k) Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE BILELLO, KAR YEE S. LAW, EMANUELE CAROLEO, and PALMER MCGUINNESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ESTEE LAUDER, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ESTEE LAUDER INC.; ESTEE LAUDER INC. FIDUCIARY INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04770 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries pursuant to Sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Estee Lauder Companies 401(k) Savings Plan, allege that the Defendants breached the fiduciary duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs and other Plan participants since June 22, 2014 by: -- failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and -- maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or materially similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. The Defendants selected and retained investment options in the Plan despite the high cost of the funds in relation to other comparable investments. The Defendants failed to investigate the availability of lower-cost share classes of certain mutual funds in the Plan and also failed to investigate certain collective trusts as alternatives to mutual funds, even though they generally provide the same investment management services at a lower cost. In addition, the Defendants failed to monitor or control the grossly excessive compensation paid for recordkeeping services. As a direct and proximate result of the breaches of fiduciary duties alleged, the Plan suffered millions of dollars of losses due to excessive costs and lower net investment returns. Had the Defendants complied with their fiduciary obligations, the Plan would not have suffered these losses, and Plan participants would have had more money available to them for their retirement. Estee Lauder, Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of quality skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care products located at 28 W. 23rd Street, 8th Floor, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com EVOLENT HEALTH: Retirement Funds File 2nd Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- Plymouth County Retirement System and Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System filed a second amended complaint on June 8 against Seth Blackley, Evolent Health, Inc., Nicholas McGrane, Christie Spencer, Steven Wigginton and Frank Williams. Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan on June 9 held that the Lead Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint "shall be deemed filed as of June 8, 2020" and directed the defendants to file their response June 22. District Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr. on June 11 held that the final pretrial conference in the cases is canceled. He said the final pretrial conference, initially set for June 18, will be reset at a later date. Evolent Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that on August 8, 2019, a shareholder of the Company filed a class action complaint against the Company, asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. An amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2020. The case, Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie Spencer, and Steven Wigginton, alleges that the Company's executives made false or misleading statements regarding its business with Passport. According to the lawsuit, Evolent on May 29, 2019, announced -- contrary to its prior assurances -- that Passport's financial condition was so dire that the Company had no choice but to acquire it in a last-ditch effort to save its most important client and revenue stream. In response to the news of Evolent's massive and cash-draining emergency bailout of its largest customer, Evolent's stock price collapsed. The stock lost nearly 30% of its value in a single day, falling from $14.15 to $10.01 per share on May 29, 2019, on extraordinarily high volume -- a decline of more than 65% from the price it traded at just eight months earlier. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 6, 2020 and the briefing was completed in early March. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), all discovery in the case is stayed until the motion to dismiss is decided upon by the court. "Based on the Company's investigation so far, we believe the case has little legal or factual merit," Evolent said. "However, the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, and at this early stage, the Company is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit." On May 7, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Evolent Health, Inc., through its subsidiary, Evolent Health LLC, provides health care delivery and payment solutions in the United States. The company operates through two segments, Services and True Health. Evolent Health, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. Megan Kinsella Kistler, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dsommers@cohenmilstein.com mkistler@cohenmilstein.com Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs: Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Brandon T. Grzandziel, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Tel: (561) 394-3399 Fax: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com brandon@saxenawhite.com - and - Steven B. Singer, Esq. Sara DiLeo, Esq. Joshua H. Saltzman, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, 8th Floor White Plains, NY 10606 Tel: (914) 437-8551 Fax: (888) 631-3611 E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com sdileo@saxenawhite.com jsaltzman@saxenawhite.com FCA US: Hromowyk Appeals Judgment in Spratley Suit to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Thomas Hromowyk filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated May 11, 2020, and Judgment dated June 9, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Spratley, et al. v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 17-cv-62 on 2020-01-23, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs are eight different individuals, each of whom separately purchased an allegedly defective vehicle made by Chrysler. They allege that Chrysler concealed a known safety defect in the tire pressure monitoring systems of some of Chrysler's most popular vehicles, including the Chrysler Town and Country Minivan, the Dodge Grand Caravan Minivan, the Jeep Liberty, and the Dodge Journey SUVs. They allege that Chrysler has known since 2008 that the valve stems in the vehicles in question were not sufficiently resistant to corrosion. Despite the significant safety risk posed by the defective valve stems in certain models, Chrysler has failed to warn owners, replace the unsafe valve stems, or reimburse owners for repairs. The appellate case is captioned as Spratley, et al. v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 20-1827, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas Hromowyk is represented by: Gary Steven Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com Defendant-Appellee FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC, is represented by: Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 1 US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 552-6354 Telephone: 866-574-4682 E-mail: sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com - and - Alan John Pope, Esq. COUGHLIN & GERHART, LLP 99 Corporate Drive P.O. Box 2039 Binghamton, NY 13904 Telephone: (607) 723-9511 E-mail: mfoltyn@psplawfirm.com FINN PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Mualem Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY MUALEM, an individual, and on behalf of other current and former employees v. FINN PARTNERS, INC., a corporation doing business in California, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22774 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 16, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wage, to compensate for all hours worked, to pay overtime wage, and to provide meal periods. The Plaintiff contends that she and other similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 8 hours per day of 40 hours per week. As a misclassified independent contractors, they did not receive overtime pay and was not provided meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, among other wage and hour violations. Finn Partners operates as a consultancy firm. The Company offers brand building consulting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Lo, Esq. WORK LAWYERS PC 22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 202 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (866) 496-7552 Facsimile: (424) 355-8535 E-mail: Justin@WorkLawyers.com FLORIDA MERCHANT: Diaz Suit Moved From Cir. Court to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO ANTONIO DIAZ and all other similarly situated individuals under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. FLORIDA MERCHANT SERVICE, INC. and JUAN J. ROMERO, Case No. 2020-010472-CA-01 (Filed May 15, 2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 18, 2020. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-22520-XXXX to the proceeding. The complaint seeks damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Florida Merchant offers business management consultancy.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel T. Feld Esq. DANIEL T. FELD P.A. 2847 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 361-8383 E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com FRANCHISE GROUP: Appeal in Liberty Tax Securities Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Franchise Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the appeal in the class action suit entitled, In Re Liberty Tax, Inc. Securities Litigation, is ongoing. This case consolidated two previously filed cases on July 12, 2018. The case, among other things, asserts that the Company's Securities and Exchange Commision (SEC) filings over a multi-year period failed to disclose the alleged misconduct of the individual defendants and that disclosure of the alleged misconduct caused the Company's stock price to drop and, thereby harm the purported class of stockholders. The class period is alleged to be October 1, 2013 through February 23, 2018. The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on September 17, 2018 which was granted on January 17, 2020. The Plaintiff filed their notice to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on February 19, 2020. The Second Circuit set an expedited briefing schedule for the appeal. Appellant's brief was filed on May 5, 2020 and Appellant's opposition brief was filed on June 9, 2020. Franchise Group, Inc. is a franchisor operator and acquirer of franchised and franchisable businesses that can be scaled using the company's operating expertise. The company currently operates three reportable segments: Liberty Tax, Buddy's and Sears Outlet. The company is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia. FRANCHISE GROUP: Asbestos Workers' Pension Fund Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Franchise Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action and derivative suit initiated by Asbestos Workers' Philadelphia Pension Fund. On August 12, 2019, Asbestos Workers' Philadelphia Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of the Company filed a class action and derivative complaint (the "Derivative Complaint") in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, against Matthew Avril, Patrick A. Cozza, Thomas Herskovits, Brian R. Kahn, Andrew M. Laurence, Lawrence Miller, G. William Minner Jr., Bryant R. Riley, Kenneth M. Young, (collectively the "Derivative Complaint Individual Defendants"), and against Vintage, B. Riley Financial, Inc. ("B. Riley"), and the Company as a Nominal Defendant. The Derivative Complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty against the Derivative Complaint Individual Defendants based on the following allegations: (a) causing the Company to completely transform its business model and to acquire Buddy's at an inflated price, (b) transfer the control of the Company to Vintage and B. Riley for no premium and without a stockholder vote, (c) allowing Vintage and B. Riley's other former stockholders to unfairly extract additional value from the Company by virtue of a Tax Receivable Agreement (TRA), (d) the offering to the Company's non-Vintage and non-B. Riley stockholders of an inadequate price for their shares of Company stock ($12.00 per share), (e) disseminating materially misleading and/or omissive Tender Offer documents, and (f) issuing additional Company shares to Vintage at less than fair value to fund the Tender Offer and Vitamin Shoppe Acquisition. The Derivative Complaint also includes a count of unjust enrichment against Vintage and B. Riley. The Derivative Complaint seeks: (a) declaration that the action is properly maintainable as a class action; (b) a finding the Individual Defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties owed to the class and the Company; (c) a finding that demand on the Company's Board is excused as futile; (d) enjoining the consummation of the Tender Offer unless and until all material information necessary for the Company's stockholders to make a fully informed tender decision has been disclosed; (e) a finding Vintage and B. Riley are liable for unjust enrichment; (f) an award to Plaintiff and the other members of the class damages in an amount which may be proven at trial; (g) an award to Plaintiff and the other members of the class pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' and expert witness fees and other costs; (h) an award to the Company in the amount of damages it sustained as a result of Individual Defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duties to the Company; and (i) awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Simultaneously with the filing of the Derivative Complaint, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking expedited proceedings. The motion was withdrawn as the Derivative Complaint Individual Defendants agreed to produce certain documents. On October 23, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Verified Amended Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), following the Company's filing of the amended and restated offer to purchase on October 16, 2019 (the "Offer to Purchase"). The Amended Complaint contained substantially similar allegations but revised certain allegations based on disclosures contained in, or purportedly omitted, from the Offer to Purchase. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on October 25, 2019, seeking to prevent the consummation of the pending Offer to Purchase unless additional information was disclosed. On November 5, 2019, the Company filed Amendment No. 5 to the Offer to Purchase making certain additional disclosures, and Plaintiff withdrew its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On February 7, 2020, Matthew Sciabacucchi, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a motion to intervene to pursue some or all of the derivative claims pending in the Court of Chancery. Mr. Sciabacucchi's motion states that Asbestos Workers' Philadelphia Pension Fund has sold its shares in the Company. The motion to intervene was granted March 10, 2020. On June 8, 2020 the Court entered an order governing briefing on Plaintiff's petition for an interim award of attorney's fees. Plaintiff's opening brief was filed on June 8, 2020. Defendant's opposition is due on or before July 23, 2020, and Plaintiff's reply is due on or before August 6, 2020. Franchise Group, Inc. is a franchisor operator and acquirer of franchised and franchisable businesses that can be scaled using the company's operating expertise. The company currently operates three reportable segments: Liberty Tax, Buddy's and Sears Outlet. The company is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia. FREEMAN SECURITY: Rivera Sues in M.D. Florida Over FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freeman Security Services, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Rivera, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Freeman Security Services, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 6:20-cv-01139 (M.D. Fla., June 26, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Freeman Security is ranked as one of the top Armed and Unarmed Provider of Security Officers and Private Investigator's in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Montone, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Fax: (833) 423-5864 Email: lmontone@theleachfirm.com GENERAL ELECTRIC CO: Baz Sues Over Employee Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Maher Baz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Electric Company and Canon Business Process Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03149 (S.D. N.Y., April 20, 2020), seeks relief under New York general business laws, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act including, but not limited to, actual damages, treble damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, and/or attorney's fees and costs. General Electric Company employs over 200,000 people worldwide and collects significant data on its current and former employees, and their beneficiaries. It contracts with Canon Business Process Services to process current and former GE employees' documents and their beneficiary-related documents. On March 20, 2020, GE announced that an unauthorized person accessed a Canon email account that contained documents with personal identifiable information of current and former GE employees and beneficiaries that included, but was not limited to, names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers and financial information, such as bank account numbers. Said exposure occurred between February 3, 2020 and February 14, 2020. Baz was employed by General Electric from 1998 to 2010 and from 2016 to July 11, 2019. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 373-1671 Email: rrivas@zlk.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: ek@zlk.com GOLDEN HOME: Torres Seeks Proper Pay for General Assistants ----------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO TORRES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- GOLDEN HOME FURNITURE INC (D/B/A GOLDEN HOME FURNITURE), 7 STAR HOME FURNITURE INC (D/B/A 7 STAR FURNITURE), MOHAMMAD ALDAOU , FRANK DOE , and DAVID ALDAOU AKA AKMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04789 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Torres worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Torres appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Torres and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. Plaintiff Torres was employed as a general assistant at the Defendants' furniture stores located in Bronx, New York. Golden Home Furniture Inc. (d/b/a Golden Home Furniture) owns, operates, or controls furniture stores in Bronx, New York. 7 Star Home Furniture Inc (d/b/a 7 Star Furniture) owns, operates, or controls furniture stores in 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 GOSSAMER BIO: Kuhne Putative Class Action Underway in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gossamer Bio, Inc. continues to defend itself in a putative class action styled, Kuhne vs. Gossamer Bio, Inc., et al., 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. On April 3, 2020, Scott Kuhne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:20-cv-00649-DMS-MDD). The complaint was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 8, 2019 and December 13, 2019. The complaint alleges that the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. Gossamer Bio said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action." GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY: Tran Seeks Disgorgement/Return of Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- David Tran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Grand Canyon University, Case No. 2:20-cv-01283-MTL (D. Ariz., June 29, 2020), is brought to seek the University's disgorgement and return of the pro-rated portion of its tuition and mandatory fees proportionate to the amount of time in the semesters when the University switched to online distance learning, and in the case of housing, pro-rated portion of the housing fees proportionate to the amount of time that remained in each housing contract after each student moved out. The University has not refunded any amount of the tuition or Mandatory Fees, even though it ceased in-person learning since March 13, 2020, the Plaintiff says. He adds that the University has also not refunded any amount of the housing fees for students who were unable to move out by March 25, 2020. Due to the University's response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, by mid-March, the University ceased or severally limited any of the services or facilities that tuition, housing, and Mandatory Fees were intended to cover. The University's failure to provide the services for which tuition and the Mandatory Fees were intended to cover since March 13, 2020, is a breach of the contracts between the University and Plaintiff and the members of the Class, and is unjust, the Plaintiff asserts. He notes that the University only provided prorated refunds to students for housing, who vacated their campus housing on or before March 25, 2020. Those students who did not move out of University housing until after March 25 should also be entitled to a prorated refund, he insists. In short, as to tuition, the Plaintiff contends, he has paid tuition for a first-rate education and educational experience, with all the appurtenant benefits offered by a first-rate university, and was provided a materially deficient and insufficient alternative, which alternative constitutes a breach of the contracts entered into by him and the Class with the University. As to the Mandatory Fees, the Plaintiff and the Class have paid fees for services and facilities which were simply not provided; this failure also constitutes a breach of the contracts entered into by Plaintiff and the Class with the University, says the complaint. The Plaintiff paid to attend the Spring 2020 semester at the Grand Canyon University as a full-time undergraduate student. The University offers numerous major fields for undergraduate students, as well as a number of graduate programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Phone: (480) 382-5176 Fax: (480) 304-3805 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com - and – James L. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 6000 Freedom Square Dr. Independence, OH 44131 Phone: (216) 525-8890 Fax: (216) 642-5814 Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com eciolko@carlsonlynch.com GREAT AMERICAN: KidsPark Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, FLOWER SISTERS LLC d/b/a KIDSPARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01294 (C.D. Cal., June 26, 2020), arises from the Defendant's breach of its contractual obligation with insurance policyholders. According to the complaint, the Defendant systematically refused to pay all its insureds, including the Plaintiff, under the Business Income, Extra Expense, Extended Business Income, Civil Authority, and Communicable Disease coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19 and related civil authority orders, regardless of whether the implicated insurance policy has an applicable pandemic exclusion or not, and regardless of whether the policy had applicable Communicable Disease coverage. The Plaintiff and Class members allege that the policy that they purchased from the Defendant is an all-risk policy which includes a broad coverage for losses resulting from any cause unless expressly excluded. The Plaintiff and Class members argue that they are entitled for payment as the legal proximate cause of their losses, was the civil authority orders issued by the State of California and similar civil authority orders issued to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Flower Sisters LLC, d/b/a KidsPark, is a part-time and full-time childcare and preschool center with its principal place of business in Corona, California. Great American Insurance Company, d/b/a Great American Insurance Group, is an insurance company with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. [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 – Will Ladnier, Esq. Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: will@gregcolemanlaw.com jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com - and – Shanon J. Carson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4656 E-mail: scarson@bm.net - and – Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27605 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com pat@whitfieldbryson.com GUABA DELI: Ramos Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA and NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Omar Ramos, Rayniel Vargas, and Anthony Cruz, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Guaba Deli Grocery Corp. d/b/a Guaba Deli, Jose Castillo, Luis Rivera, and Deisy Guaba, Case No. 1:20-cv-04904 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2020), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law alleging that the Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL, because the Defendants' violations lacked a good faith basis. According to the complaint, the Defendants did not provide a time clock, sign in sheet, or any other method for employees to track their time worked. The Plaintiffs did not need to track their time worked, because they were not paid at an hourly rate. Instead, the Plaintiffs were all paid on a salary basis throughout their employment. The Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs amounts at least equal to the New York state minimum wages in effect during all relevant time periods was willful, and lacked a good faith basis. In addition, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to perform the roles of cashier, food preparer, cleaner and stocker. The Defendants have owned and operated a deli in the Bronx.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 563-9884 Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com H&R BLOCK: Bid to Stay Proceeding in Swanson Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2020, that the company's motion to: -- stay the proceedings in Swanson v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine; and -- compel arbitration remains pending. On September 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., HRB Digital LLC and Free File, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 4:19-cv-00788-GAF) styled Swanson v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. The plaintiff seeks to represent both a nationwide class and a California subclass of all persons eligible for the IRS Free File Program who paid to use an H&R Block product to file an online tax return for the 2002 through 2018 tax filing years. The plaintiff generally alleges unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq., California False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq., California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., in addition to breach of contract and fraud. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The company filed a motion to stay the proceedings based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine and a motion to compel arbitration, both of which remain pending. H&R Block said, "We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax solutions, and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, Canada, and Australia. H&R Block, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. H&R BLOCK: Continues to Defend Olosoni and Snarr Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Olosoni and Snarr v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. On May 17, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco (Case No. CGC-19576093) styled Olosoni and Snarr v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 21, 2019 (Case No. 3:19-cv-03610-SK). The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on August 9, 2019, dropping H&R Block, Inc. from the case. In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs seek to represent classes of all persons, between May 17, 2015 and the present, who (1) paid to file one or more federal tax returns through H&R Block's internet-based filing system, (2) were eligible to file those tax returns for free through the H&R Block Free File offer of the IRS Free File Program, and (3) resided in and were citizens of California at the time of the payments. The plaintiffs generally allege unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq., California False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq., and California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The company filed a motion to stay the proceedings based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine and a motion to compel arbitration, both of which were denied. An appeal of the denial of the motion to compel arbitration is pending. The company filed a motion to stay the claims pending the outcome of the appeal, as well as a motion to dismiss the claims, which also were denied. The company filed an answer to the amended complaint on April 7, 2020. H&R Block said, "We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this matter." H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax solutions, and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, Canada, and Australia. H&R Block, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. HARTFORD CASUALTY: Siegel & Siegel Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hartford Casualty Insurance Company. The case is styled as Siegel & Siegel, P.C.; Siegel Law Group, P.C.; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-04993 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2020). The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company offers auto, home, business, and flood insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Darren T. Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN GORE LLP 1359 Broadway, Suite 2001 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 999-7370 Fax: (404) 537-3320 Email: dkaplan@kaplangore.com HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Alvarez Sues Over Shelved Flight, Seeks Refund ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nataly Alvarez, an individual person on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00175, (D. Haw., April 20, 2020), seeks a full cash refund, an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, fraud and breach of contract. Hawaiian Airlines is among the largest airlines in the United States and focuses heavily on travel between mainland United States and Hawaii, as well destinations in Asia and the South Pacific. Its business was disrupted as a result of the recent travel ban due to the COVID19 pandemic. On March 4, 2020, Alvarez purchased a ticket directly from Hawaiian for an April 14, 2020 flight from Los Angeles to Maui. Plaintiff was to fly with her husband and son and paid approximately $149.00 per ticket for this flight, for a total of approximately $447.00. However, the flight was cancelled by Hawaiian on March 27, 2020 due to the coronavirus so she requested a refund. She alleged that Hawaiian was only issuing credits for the flight cancellations, not cash refunds. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Birney B. Bervar, Esq. BERVAR & JONES Alakea Corporate Tower 1100 Alakea Street, 20th Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 550-4990 Email: bbb@bervar-jones.com (Hawaii Bar No. 5482) - and - Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com - and - Andrew Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: aobergfell@bursor.com HEALTHY HALO: Gordon Remanded to Spokane County Superior Court -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ISAAC GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHY HALO INSURANCE SERVICES INC., a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-0387-TOR (E.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the court order dismissing complaint with leave to amend. The case arose following the transmission of text messages promoting the Defendant's health insurance business, which the Plaintiff alleges violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act by way of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act. The Plaintiff initially commenced the action against Defendant Healthy Halo and a second Defendant, CallFire, Inc., in Spokane County Superior Court. CallFire then removed the case to federal court on the basis of class action diversity jurisdiction. It was subsequently dismissed by stipulation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Following removal, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which is the current operative Complaint. The Defendant filed an Answer and the parties jointly filed a Joint Certification and Proposed Discovery Plan. On Feb. 21, 2020, after reviewing the filings, the Court entered a sua sponte "Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend." On Feb. 26, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The Plaintiff asks the District Court to remand the case to state court rather than dismissing the action. The Plaintiff specifically alleged in the Amended Complaint that federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists based on the parties' diversity of citizenship and that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000. Because the Plaintiff chose to amend the Complaint rather than challenge removal, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint with leave to amend in anticipation that he could sufficiently allege federal subject-matter jurisdiction with amendment. However, in consideration of the relevant legal principles and the parties' current agreement that federal subject-matter jurisdiction is not present, the appropriate remedy now is to remand the matter to state court, the District Court opines. The Plaintiff requests attorney's fees and costs be awarded for "improvident removal" of the case to federal court. The Defendant objects on the grounds that it was not the party that removed this matter to federal court. The Plaintiff does not specify which the Defendant it proposes should be liable for the Plaintiff's requested attorney's fees. Former Defendant CallFire removed the action to federal court. It was then dismissed from the action by the Plaintiff's own stipulation. Defendant Healthy Halo did not consent to CallFire's removal and is now the only remaining Defendant. The Plaintiff has identified no legal authority to assess fees against Healthy Halo, who was not the removing party and did not consent to removal. Additionally, the District Court no longer has jurisdiction over the removing party, CallFire, because the Plaintiff previously stipulated to CallFire's dismissal from the action, "with no award of attorney's fees or costs to either party." The Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), the District Court finds. For these reasons, Judge Rice granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The Plaintiff's request for an award of attorney's fee is denied. The case is remanded to the Spokane County Superior Court for all further proceedings. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 20, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/wOldIp from Leagle.com. Issac Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Cameron -- bcameron@cameronsutherland.com -- Cameron Sutherland PLLC, Kirk D. Miller -- kmiller@millerlawspokane.com -- Kirk D Miller PS & Shayne Sutherland -- ssutherland@cameronsutherland.com -- Cameron Sutherland PLLC. Healthy Halo Insurance Services Inc, a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Erin M. Wilson -- wilsonem@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, John S. Devlin, III -- devlinj@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC & Taylor Washburn, Lane Powell PC. HEARTWISE INC: Mislabels NatureWise Curcumin Caps, Valentine Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Martha Valentine, as an individual, on behalf of herself, the general public and those similarly situated v. HEARTWISE INCORPORATED D/B/A NATUREWISE AND HEARTWISE WONDER INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:20-cv-04302-TSH (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2020), is brought against the Defendants and its related entities to seek redress for their deceptive practices in labeling and marketing the NatureWise Curcumin dietary supplement. Curcumin (a curcuminoid) is found in turmeric, a spice frequently used in Asian curries. Curcuminoids are purported to help with inflammation, are potent antioxidants, and may improve brain function. However, the amount of turmeric one would need to consume in order to get the positive benefits of curcuminoid consumption is upwards of ten grams. As a result, consumers take curcumin supplements to get the positive effects of curcuminoid consumption without having to ingest copious amount of turmeric, unusual in the Western diet. According to the complaint, the Defendants prominently label the front of their popular curcumin supplement as providing "2250 mg Per Day" of curcumin with the representation "90" or "180 VEGETARIAN CAPSULES." This representation leads reasonable consumers to believe that each of the 180 capsules contains 2250 mg of the curcumin supplement. However, upon closer inspection of the bottle, the Product does not contain 2250 mg of the curcumin supplement per capsule. The supplement actually requires three capsules to provide the advertised 2250 mg dosage, which means that each capsule contains only 750 mg of curcumin. Otherwise stated, the Plaintiff received only a third of the amount of the supplement she intended to purchase based on the false and misleading statements on the front of the label, according to the complaint. NatureWise intentionally fails to adequately disclose to consumers that more than one capsule is required to obtain the labeled dosage amount. As such, NatureWise's representations and omissions on the Product are false and misleading. Had Ms. Valentine had been aware of the truth regarding NatureWise's misrepresentations and omissions, she would not have purchased the supplement, or at the very least, would have paid less for it. The Defendant's misrepresentations and mislabeling caused Plaintiff and members of the proposed class to pay a price premium for the Product because they believed that they were purchasing 3x as much of the supplement as they actually received, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual and a resident of San Francisco, California. The Defendants manufacture, distribute, market, advertise, and sell various dietary supplements in the United States under the brand name "NatureWise."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 789-6390 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 HENRY SCHEIN: Time to Appeal Dismissal Order Already Passed ----------------------------------------------------------- Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the time to take an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from the trial court order granting the motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D., has passed. On January 29, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D. against Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co., and unnamed co-conspirators in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class suffered antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott, price-fixing or otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco. The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged Illinois dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the class. Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as "all persons residing in Illinois purchasing and/or reimbursing for dental care provided by independent Illinois dental practices purchasing dental supplies from the defendants, or purchasing from buying groups purchasing these supplies from the defendants, on or after January 29, 2015." The complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. Sections 10/3(2), 10/7(2), and seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On February 13, 2020, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and dismissed the action with prejudice. The time to appeal the Seventh Circuit's decision in favor of defendants has passed. Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. HERC RENTALS: Rudolph Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK RUDOLPH, as an Individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HERC RENTALS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-05412 (Filed April 15, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 18, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05412 to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay minimum wages and liquidated damages; to pay overtime and minimum wages; to provide meal periods; to provide rest periods; and to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Herc Rentals provides rental services. The Company offers aerial, compaction and paving, pumping, climate control, earthmoving, and power generation equipment on rental basis.[BN] Defendant Herc Rentals is represented by: Hanna B. Raanan, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: 714 800 7900 Facsimile: 714 754 1298 E-mail: hanna.raanan@ogletree.com HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: Sandoval Sues Over High Levels of NDMA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Sandoval, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware corporation; HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. d/b/a AVET PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-05787 (C.D. Cal., June 29, 2020), arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, and sale of the generic medication metformin that contains dangerously high levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic and liver-damaging impurity. Metformin is a prescription medication that has been sold under brand names such as Glucophage. Metformin is primarily used to control high blood sugar in patients with Type 2 diabetes. However, the Plaintiff alleges, Avet's manufacturing process has caused their metformin to contain dangerously high levels of NDMA. Avet had not yet issued a recall of its defective metformin and continues to represent its website that it manufactures "high quality generic medicines." However, these representations are false, as Defendant's metformin medication contains the carcinogenic impurity NDMA, the Plaintiff adds. When purchasing metformin from the Defendant, the Plaintiff reviewed the accompanying labels and disclosures, and reasonably understood them to be representations and warranties by the manufacturer, distributor, and pharmacy that the medication was properly manufactured, free from defects, and safe for its intended use. The Plaintiff says he relied on these representations and warranties in deciding to purchase the Defendant's metformin, and these representations and warranties were part of the basis of the bargain, in that he would not have purchased metformin from the Defendant if he had known it was not, in fact, properly manufactured and free from defects. The Plaintiff further understood that each purchase involved a direct transaction between himself and Avet because his medication came with packaging and other materials prepared by Avet, including representations and warranties that his medication was properly manufactured and free from defects, says the complaint. Mr. Sandoval was prescribed, purchased, and consumed metformin manufactured by the Defendant. Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc., doing business as Avet Pharmaceuticals Inc., is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at One Tower Center Boulevard, in East Brunswick, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Rolf Jensen, Esq. JENSEN & ASSOCIATES Trial Lawyers 650 Town Center Drive, 12th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 662-5527 INHIBITOR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Investor Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------- Inhibitor Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a stockholder class action complaint entitled, Sears v. Magrab et al., C.A. No. 2020-0215-JTL. On March 23, 2020, a Stockholder Class Action Complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Company stockholder and purported class representative Samuel P. Sears, commencing litigation captioned Sears v. Magrab et al., C.A. No. 2020-0215-JTL. The Class Action followed a request for, and subsequent provision of, certain books and records of the Company pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 220. The defendants named in the Class Action are identical to those named in the civil action captioned Hedgepath, LLC v. Magrab, et al., Civil Action Number 2019-0529-JTL, in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Action"), with the exception that the Company is not a party to the litigation. The Class Action asserts two direct breach of fiduciary duty claims -- one against Mayne Pharma (Mayne), the other against the Individual Defendants -- and the facts underlying those claims almost entirely mirror those alleged in the Action. The Company believes the Class Action is legally and factually baseless, and the Individual Defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously. Inhibitor Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a development stage pharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on developing and commercializing innovative therapies for patients with cancer and non-cancerous proliferation disorders. Inhibitor Therapeutics operates in the State of Florida. The company is based in Tampa, Florida. INSULET CORP: Johnson Suit Moved From Super. Court to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as LORI JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. INSULET CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV12730 (Filed March 30, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 18, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05418 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for recovery of unpaid overtime; failure to provide meal periods and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; and waiting time penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code. Insulet is an innovative medical device company.[BN] Defendant Insulet Corp. is represented by: Shannon R. Boyce, Esq. Nasim Khansari, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: 310 553 0308 Facsimile: 310 553 5583 E-mail: sboyce@littler.com nkhansari@littler.com IQVIA INC: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, Dearing et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------- The case, DARYA DEARING, JANICE GULLICK, BOBBY T. TRUSSEL, RICHARD A. HAYNES, NELSON SIEVERS and LAUREN BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IQVIA, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF IQVIA HOLDINGS, INC.; THE BENEFITS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00574 (M.D.N.C., June 23, 2020), arises from the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries pursuant to Sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the IQVIA 401(k) Plan, allege that the Defendants failed to perform the fiduciary duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs and other Plan participants by failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or materially similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories; and failing to consider lower cost collective trusts that were available to the Plan as alternatives to certain mutual funds in the Plan. The Board Defendants also failed to monitor and evaluate the performance of the Committee Defendants or have a system in place for doing so and also failed to monitor the processes by which Plan investments were evaluated. As a consequence of these breaches of duty, the Plan suffered millions of dollars of losses. Had the Defendants complied with their fiduciary obligations, the Plan would not have suffered these losses, and Plan participants, including the Plaintiffs, would have had more money available to them for their retirement. IQVIA, Inc. is a global provider of advanced analytics, technology solutions and contract research services to the life sciences industry, with principal place of business located at 4820 Emperor Boulevard, Durham, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Szymankiewicz, Esq. MATHESON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 127 West Hargett Street, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 335-5291 Facsimile: (919) 516-0686 - and – Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com - and – Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Health Plan Sues Over Delay in Generic Entry ------------------------------------------------------------------ GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; EUROHEALTH (USA), INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; LUPIN LTD.; LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; and LUPIN INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03673 (N.D. Ill., June 23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2, monopolization and monopolistic scheme under state law, conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade under state law, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, on behalf of all individual persons or entities in the United States and its territories that purchased, paid for and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Xyrem from Jazz Pharmaceuticals or any agents, predecessors, or successors, starting January 1, 2018, alleges that Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals, a drug company that manufactures and sells sodium oxybate drug called Xyrem, is engaged in anticompetitive schemes and unlawful payoffs to its would-be competitors in order to impair and delay generic competition in the market for sodium oxybate oral solution. These schemes include: (1) acquiring and enforcing bogus patents, (2) prosecuting citizen petitions before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that had no realistic likelihood of success, (3) and abusing the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS)-related FDA approval conditions for Xyrem to frustrate efforts by would be generic competitors to gain FDA approval for their own generic versions of the product. In recent years, Jazz crafted a series of unlawful market allocation agreements with its would-be generic competitors. Under the agreements, Jazz carved the market through explicit limited supply distributorships, effectively ensuring the continued high prices for Xyrem through volume-limited supplies provided by Jazz to its would-be competitors. In exchange, generic companies dropped meritorious patent challenges against Jazz and agreed to postpone generic entry for years. As a result of the illegal monopolization and market restriction agreements of Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals and other Defendant conspirators, the Plaintiff and Class members are forced to pay artificially-inflated, supracompetitive prices for Xyrem. Government Employees Health Association, Inc. (GEHA) is a not-for-profit association with a principal place of business is located at 310 NE Mulberry Street, Lee's Summit, Missouri. It provides health and dental plans to federal employees and retirees and their families through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan and the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. Its U.S. headquarters is located at 3170 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, California. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited is a pharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company is an Ireland public limited biopharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. It is the parent company of Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited. Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC is a multinational pharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, with its principal place of business at 1 New Burlington Place, London, W1S 2HR and its U.S. headquarters at 246 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 246 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, with its principal place of business at 1809 Wilson Road, Columbus, Ohio. Eurohealth (USA), Inc. is a holding company for Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 246 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC is a limited liability company that manufactures and supplies generic pharmaceuticals organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 400 Crossing Boulevard, Bridgewater, New Jersey. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at One Ram Ridge Rd., Chestnut Ridge, New York. Lupin Ltd. is a public limited company organized and existing under the laws of India, with its principal place of business at B/4 Laxmi Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051, India. Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111 South Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland. Lupin Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111 South Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. Whitney K. Siehl, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 Facsimile: (708) 628-4950 E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com whitneys@hbsslaw.com - and – Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Lauren G. Barnes, Esq. Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com lauren@hbsslaw.com bradleyv@hbsslaw.com - and – Mark Fischer, Esq. Jeffrey Swann, Esq. Robert C. Griffith, Esq. RAWLINGS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1 Eden Parkway La Grange, KY 40031 Telephone: (502) 814-2139 E-mail: mdf@rawlingsandassociates.com js5@rawlingsandassociates.com rg1@rawlingsandassociates.com JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Aitboukil Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Yassine Aitboukil, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 0:20-cv-61257-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 26, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, provides financial services. The Company offers payment rewards, bankruptcy claims, and debt collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com JENNER'S POND: Improperly Deducts Entrance Refund, MacLeod Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAN MACLEOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JENNER'S POND, INC., D/B/A, A/K/A JENNER'S POND RETIREMENT COMMUNITY; SIMPSON SENIOR SERVICES; SIMPSON SENIOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, LLC; SIMPSON MEADOWS; and SIMPSON HOUSE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 200601354 (Pa. C.P., Philadelphia Cty., June 23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. According to the complaint, the Defendants deducted a so-called market upgrade from the Plaintiff's and other residents' refund payments even though the form agreement that they signed with the Defendants does not provide such deduction. Under the form agreement with the Defendants, the elderly residents agree to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in entrance fees to reside in the Defendants' senior living communities, and the Defendants agree to provide a partial refund of the entrance fees once the residents leave and upon resale of the residents' units. The Defendants breached the agreement through the market upgrade deductions without consent and their failure to fully reimburse the Plaintiff and Class members consistent with the terms of the agreement. The Defendants also breached their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff and Class members by failing to minimize the cost of changes made to residents' units prior to sale, improperly using residents' refunds to fund their own capital improvements costs in upgrading the units, failing to reasonably ensure the maximum refund to residents, and failing to act in good faith in the resale of residents' unit. Jenner's Pond, Inc., d/b/a, a/k/a Jenner's Pond Retirement Community, is a retirement community in West Grove, Pennsylvania. Simpson Senior Services is a company that provides elder care through continuing care retirement communities, with its registered address in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Simpson Senior Housing and Community Services, LLC is an elder care community operator, with its registered address in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Simpson Meadows is an elder care community operator, with its registered address in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Simpson House, Inc. is an elder care community operator, with its registered address in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq. David L. Kwass, Esq. Elizabeth A. Bailey, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY P.C. One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3859 E-mail: ebailey@smbb.com - and – Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com LEIKIN INGBER: Van Vleck Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- VINCE NICOLAS VAN VLECK, individually, VINCE NICOLAS VAN VLECK, in a representative capacity on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. LEIKIN, INGBER & WINTERS, P.C., d/b/a INGBER & WINTERS, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-11635-SDD-EAS (E.D. Mich., June 22, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff after being served with a state court complaint and summons by the Defendant, notably a collection lawsuit exclusively based on medical debts, amid COVID-19 pandemic. According to the complaint, Plaintiff's individual claim asserts that the in-person service by a process server was not only an act prohibited under the "Stay Home, Stay Safe" Executive Order, which in part directed all non-critical businesses to temporarily close, notably requiring "[i]n-person activities that are not necessary to sustain or protect life must be suspended until normal operations resume", but that it was a willful violation of that Executive Order which is a misdemeanor, and that same prohibited conduct also violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Further, Plaintiff, individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, alleges that the summons stating that a responsive pleading to the state court complaint must be filed within 21-days of the in person service, 28-days if served by mail, was false and deprived him and the class members of additional time, being able to exercise their right of delay provided under Michigan Supreme Court Administrate Order No. 2020-3 and Executive Order No. 2020-58 (COVID-19), from responding to the complaint, expediting the case and having the potential of having a judgment entered against them and being garnished. Leikin, Ingber & Winters, P.C. is a Southfield, Michigan-based domestic professional corporation operating as a law firm that engages in the collection of medical debts in volume.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis C. Warner, Esq. 5 E. Market St., Suite 250 Corning, NY 14830 Telephone: (888) 551-8685 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal - and - B. Thomas Golden, Esq. GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 318 E. Main St., Ste, L, P.O. Box 9 Lowell, MI 49331 Telephone: (616) 897-2900 E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Assa'ad-Faltas Appeals Decision to 4th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Movant MARIE THERESE ASSA'AD-FALTAS filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in her lawsuit styled Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. Lexington County, SC, Case No. 3:17-cv-01426-MBS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at Columbia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit accuses Lexington County of running a modern day debtors' prison. According to American Civil Liberties Union and its legal ally, Lexington County runs a nasty practice of routinely jailing individuals unable to pay court-ordered fines on time. In some cases, they say, men and women have had bench warrants issued for their arrest mere days after accruing a past-due balance. The appellate case is captioned as Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. Lexington County, SC, Case No. 20-6939, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Movant-Appellant MARIE THERESE ASSA'AD-FALTAS, of Columbia, South Carolina, appears pro se.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees TWANDA MARSHINDA BROWN, SASHA MONIQUE DARBY, CAYESHIA CASHEL JOHNSON, AMY MARIE PALACIOS, XAVIER LARRY GOODWIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; RAYMOND WRIGHT, JR., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and NORA ANN CORDER, are represented by: Nusrat Jahan Choudhury, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2400 Telephone: (212) 519-7876 E-mail: nchoudhury@aclu.org - and - Susan King Dunn, Esq. ACLU OF SOUTH CAROLINA P. O. Box 20998 Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 282-7953 E-mail: sdunn@aclusouthcarolina.org - and - Toby James Marshall, Esq. Eric Riley Nusser, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com eric@terrellmarshall.com Defendants-Appellees LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; GARY REINHART, in his individual capacity; REBECCA ADAMS, in her official and individual capacities as the Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes of the Summary Courts in Lexington County and in her official capacity as the Judge of the Irmo Magistrate Court; ROBERT MADSEN, in his official capacity as the Circuit Public Defender for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of South Carolina; BRYAN KOON, in his official capacity as the Lexington County Sheriff; and ALBERT JOHN DOOLEY, III, in his official capacity as the Associate Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes of the Summary Courts in Lexington County, are represented by: William Henry Davidson, II, Esq. Kenneth Paul Woodington, Esq. DAVIDSON, WREN & PLYLER, PA P. O. Box 8568 Columbia, SC 29202-8568 Telephone: (803) 806-8222 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Wagner Alleges Unlawful Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- URSULA WAGNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-00040-NKM (W.D. Va., June 22, 2020) alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and others similarly situated on their cellular telephones with the use of an "automatic telephone dialing system" without prior express consent. According to the complaint, Ms. Wagner has never expressed an interest in attending Liberty University. Nonetheless, Ms. Wagner received repeated robocalls from Liberty University, including on September 4, 5, 10, and 18, 2019. The calls were made to solicit attendance at Liberty University and were not necessitated by an emergency. Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been harmed by the acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated, they were annoyed and harassed, and, in some instances, they were charged for incoming calls. The calls occupied their cellular telephone lines. Liberty University is a private evangelical Christian university in Lynchburg, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Hissam, Esq. HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE, PLLC 707 Virginia Street East, Suite 260 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (681) 265-3802 E-mail: mhissam@hfdrlaw.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Attorney's Fee Award Vacated ------------------------------------------------ Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that an appeals court has vacated the award of attorney's fees to the lawyers representing the class in the Formaldehyde & Abrasion multi-district litigation, requiring the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to reconsider the award. Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous purported class action cases were filed in various United States federal district courts and state courts involving claims of excessive formaldehyde emissions from the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products. The purported classes consisted of all United States consumers that purchased the relevant products during certain time periods. Plaintiffs in these cases challenged the Company's labeling of its products as compliant with the California Air Resources Board Regulation and alleged claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and violation of various state consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief and unquantified damages, including restitution and actual, compensatory, consequential and, in certain cases, punitive damages, as well as interest, costs and attorneys' fees incurred by the plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with the alleged claims. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") transferred and consolidated the federal cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the "Virginia Court"). The consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation (the "Formaldehyde MDL"). Beginning on or about May 20, 2015, multiple class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and other district courts located in the place of residence of each non-California plaintiffs consisting of United States consumers who purchased the Company's Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring products challenging certain representations about the durability and abrasion class ratings of such products. These plaintiffs asserted claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty and violation of various state consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in these cases; however, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they did seek an order (i) certifying the action as a class action, (ii) adopting the plaintiffs' class definitions and finding that the plaintiffs are their proper representatives, (iii) appointing their counsel as class counsel, (iv) granting injunctive relief to prohibit the Company from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate flooring products with false abrasion class ratings, (v) providing restitution of all monies the Company received from the plaintiffs and class members and (vi) providing damages (actual, compensatory and consequential), as well as punitive damages. On October 3, 2016, the MDL Panel transferred and consolidated the abrasion class actions to the Virginia Court. The consolidated case is captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Laminate Flooring Durability Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (the "Abrasion MDL"). On March 15, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to jointly settle the Formaldehyde MDL and the Abrasion MDL. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to fund $22 million (the "MDL Cash Payment") and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers for an aggregate settlement amount of $36 million to settle claims brought on behalf of purchasers of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by the Company between January 1, 2009 and May 31, 2015. The $36 million aggregate settlement amount was accrued in 2017. On June 16, 2018, the Virginia Court issued an order that, among other things, granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Following the preliminary approval, and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, in June 2018, the Company paid $0.5 million for settlement administration costs, which is part of the MDL Cash Payment, to the plaintiffs' settlement escrow account. Subsequent to the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing held on October 3, 2018, the Court approved the settlement on October 9, 2018 and, as a result, the Company paid $21.5 million in cash into the plaintiffs' settlement escrow account. On November 8, 2018, an individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit challenging the settlement. On December 14, 2018, another individual filed a Notice of Appeal in the Appeals Court. Subsequently, the Appeals Court consolidated both appeals. On March 10, 2020, the Appeals Court upheld the order approving the settlement agreement, and vacated the award of attorney's fees, requiring the Virginia Court to reconsider the award of attorneys' fees to the lawyers representing the class. The Appeals Court determined that the Settlement Agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, and upheld the district court's approval order. On remand, the Virginia Court will reconsider how attorney's fees for the class lawyers should be calculated for the settlement that includes cash and vouchers. The legal exposure to the company is the same, and the company is pleased that the settlement agreement was upheld. Vouchers, which generally have a three-year life, will be distributed by the administrator upon order of the Virginia Court. At March 31, 2020, the Company's obligations related to Formaldehyde MDL and Abrasion MDL consisted of a short-term payable of $36 million with $14 million expected to be satisfied by the issuance of vouchers. If the appeals were to result in the settlement being set aside, the Company would receive $21.5 million back from the escrow agent. Accordingly, the Company has accounted for the payment of $21.5 million as a deposit in the caption "Deposit for Legal Settlements" on its condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company has no liability accrued related to the appeals. In addition to those purchasers who elected to opt out of the above settlement (the "Opt Outs"), there are a number of individual claims and lawsuits alleging personal injuries, breach of warranty claims or violation of state consumer protection statutes that remain pending (collectively, the "Related Laminate Matters"). Certain of these Related Laminate Matters were settled in 2019. The Company did not have any expense for this matter for the three months ended March 31, 2020. As of March 31, 2020, the remaining accrual related to these matters was $0.1 million, which has been included in the caption "Accrual for Legal Matters and Settlements Current" on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. For the three months ended March 31, 2019, the Company recognized charges to earnings of $0.4 million within SG&A expenses for these Remaining Laminate Matters. Lumber Liquidators said, "While the Company believes that a further loss associated with the Opt Outs and Related Laminate Matters is possible, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss beyond what has been provided. Any such losses could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or collectively, on the Company's results of operations, financial condition and liquidity." Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Sept. 24 Final Approval Hearing on Gold Accord ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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 hearing to consider final approval of the settlement in the class action suit initiated by Dana Gold is currently scheduled for September 24, 2020. In 2014, Dana Gold filed a purported class action lawsuit alleging that certain bamboo flooring that the Company sells is defective. On September 30, 2019, the parties finalized a settlement agreement that is consistent with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding previously disclosed by the Company, which would resolve the Gold Litigation on a nationwide basis. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company will contribute $14 million in cash and provide $14 million in store-credit vouchers, with a potential additional $2 million in store-credit vouchers based on obtaining a claim's percentage of more than 7 percent, for an aggregate settlement of up to $30 million. The settlement agreement makes clear that the settlement does not constitute or include an admission by the Company of any fault or liability and the Company does not admit any fault, wrongdoing or liability. On December 18, 2019, the court issued an order that, among other things, granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Following the preliminary approval, and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, in December 2019, the Company paid $1 million for settlement of administrative costs, which is part of the Gold Cash Payment, to the plaintiff's settlement escrow account. Notice has been disseminated to the class members by the settlement administrator and a Final Approval and Settlement Hearing is currently scheduled for September 24, 2020. The settlement agreement is subject to certain contingencies, including court approval. There can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized and approved by the court at the Final Approval and Settlement Hearing or as to the ultimate outcome of the litigation. Lumber Liquidators said, "If a final, court approved settlement is not reached, the Company will defend the matter vigorously and believes there are meritorious defenses and legal standards that must be met for, among other things, success on the merits. The Company has notified its insurance carriers and continues to pursue coverage, but the insurers to date have denied coverage. As the insurance claim is still pending, the Company has not recognized any insurance recovery related to the Gold Litigation." Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories. The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs, and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia. LYFT INC: Bid for Injunctive Relief in Cunningham Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MELODY CUNNINGHAM and FRUNWI MANCHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LYFT, INC., LOGAN GREEN, and JOHNZIMMER, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11974-IT (D. Mass.), Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs Cunningham and Mancho bring claims, on their own behalf and on behalf of drivers who have worked in Massachusetts for Defendant Lyft, based on Lyft's alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors. Plaintiff Cunningham filed the putative class action, on her own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated Lyft drivers in Massachusetts, under the Massachusetts Wage Act, and the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, alleging misclassification and non-payment of minimum wage and overtime. Cunningham also filed the pending motion, asking the court to immediately enjoin Lyft from misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees and to require that Lyft reclassify its drivers as employees and comply with Massachusetts wage laws. The Defendants responded with a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, and Cunningham subsequently amended her complaint to add Frunwi Mancho as a named Plaintiff. The parties agreed that the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings applied to Plaintiff Mancho's claims and did not need to be refiled. Judge Talwani begins with the Motion for Injunctive Relief, rather than the Motion to Compel Arbitration, for two reasons. First, if the Defendants are correct that arbitration is required, the Court still retains the power to grant interim relief, if otherwise justified, for the interval needed to resort to the arbitrator. Second, the Plaintiffs have argued that the "public injunction" they seek precludes a referral to arbitration. In light of the Defendants' objection to addressing the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims while the Motion to Compel Arbitration was pending, the Judge permitted the Defendants to defer briefing on the likelihood of success on the merits, and to address first the other requirements for a motion for preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs argue that they meet the irreparable injury prong based on the alleged injury faced by the public writ large throughout Massachusetts on account of Lyft's misclassification of workers. They urge the Court to "follow" a California Supreme Court decision, McGill v. Citibank, N.A. In McGill, the court held that if public injunctive relief is available, a plaintiff cannot waive the statutory right to seek such relief in court by signing an arbitration agreement. The Plaintiffs argue that there is no difference between Massachusetts law and California law on the subject of public injunctions. But Plaintiffs' argument skips a step. The Judge finds that unlike the consumer protection statutes at issue in McGill, the Massachusetts Wage Act includes no provisions for public injunctive relief. Instead, the statutory scheme allows a plaintiff to institute and prosecute in his own name and on his own behalf, or for himself and for others similarly situated, a civil action for injunctive relief, for any damages incurred, and for any lost wages and other benefits. The statute explicitly contemplates class-wide relief but includes no provisions that allow for injunction for the public benefit. As the McGill court noted, relief that has the primary purpose or effect of redressing or preventing injury to an individual plaintiff -- or to a group of individuals similarly situated to the plaintiff -- does not constitute public injunctive relief. Finally, the Plaintiffs suggest the Court certifies a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to determine whether Massachusetts law will follow the rule in McGill such that the right to claims for public injunctive relief cannot be thwarted through the use of an arbitration clause. But again, the suggestion is misplaced. The threshold issue is not whether a statutory scheme allowing the Plaintiffs to sue for public injunctive relief may be thwarted by arbitration provisions, but whether the statutory scheme at issue allows for a public injunction. Because the Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing of immediate threat of irreparable harm, the Judge need not reach the other factors in the preliminary injunction analysis. In light of the foregoing, Judge Talwani denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive Relief. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 20, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/E9ddtI from Leagle.com. Melody Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide H. Pagano -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Anne R. Kramer -- akramer@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon E. Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. Frunwi Mancho, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne R. Kramer, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. Lyft, Inc., Logan Green & John Zimmer, Defendants, represented by James D. Smeallie -- jd.smeallie@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, Adele M. El-Khouri, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew E. Silvia, Holland & Knight, David J. Santeusanio, Holland & Knight, LLP, Jeffrey Y. Wu, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, pro hac vice, Justin P. Raphael -- Justin.Raphael@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, pro hac vice, Michael T. Maroney -- michael.maroney@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight, LLP & Rohit K. Singla -- Rohit.Singla@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, pro hac vice. MAGELLAN HEALTH: Griffe Sues in Arizona Over Breach of Contract --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Magellan Health Incorporated. The case is styled as Chris Griffe, Bharath Maduranthgam Rayam, Michael Domingo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Magellan Health Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-01282-MTM (D. Ariz., June 29, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Magellan Health is one of the largest managed behavioral health care companies in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W Monroe St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 283-3814 Fax: (773) 496-8617 Email: gklinger@masonllp.com gmason@masonllp.com - and - Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP 14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Ste. 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2762 Phone: (480) 348-6400 Fax: (480) 348-6415 Email: AZDocketing@zimmreed.com MALBRO CONSTRUCTION: Sued over Non-Payment of Contract Balance -------------------------------------------------------------- D.B.H FAST SOLUTIONS CORP., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MALBRO CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.; DENIS MALONEY; PETER MALONEY; and KEVIN MALONEY, Defendants, Case No. 707744/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., June 17, 2020) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Class all the sums due under their contract. According to the complaint, on December 23, 2017, the Plaintiff, as contractor, entered into a written contract with the Defendant Malbro the (the "8 Janet Lane Contract") whereby, for the sum of $77,674.36, the Plaintiff agreed to perform certain work, labor, and services and furnish certain improvements to the property located at 8 Janet Lane, Breezy Point, New York (the " 8 Janet Lane Project " ). During the performance of the Plaintiff's work, it performed additional work in the amount of $58,198.17, bringing the price of the 8 Janet Lane Contract to $135,872.53. Pursuant to the terms of the 8 Janet Lane Contract, upon completion of the 8 Janet Lane Contract, the 8 Janet Lane Contract Price would be increased by 15%. The Plaintiff satisfactorily completed all of its work pursuant to the terms of the 8 Janet Lane Contract bringing the total price of the 8 Janet Lane Contract to $156,253.41. The Plaintiff was never paid in full on the 8 Janet Lane Contract by the Defendant Malbro. As such, a balance of $60,191.52 remains due and owing to the Plaintiff from the Defendant Malbro for the Plaintiff's work on the 8 Janet Lane Project performed under the 8 Janet Lane Contract. Despite due demand for, the Defendant Malbro has failed to pay the Plaintiff all sums due it, and the Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in the amount to be determined at trial, but estimated to be at least $60,191.52, plus statutory interest thereon. Malbro Construction Services, Inc. residential construction company in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew L. Richards, Esq. Andrew G. Kao, Esq. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP 135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201 Woodbury, NY 11797 Telephone: (516)681-1100 MANHATTAN COLLEGE: Beck Seeks Tuition Fee Refund ------------------------------------------------ Czigany Beck, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Manhattan College, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03229 (S.D. N.Y., April 23, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing, and meals, injunctive relief including enjoining Manhattan College from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such other and further relief as may be just and proper, refunds of all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages resulting from breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Manhattan College is an institution of higher learning located in Riverdale, New York where Beck is currently enrolled as a full-time student in its undergraduate engineering program. He has paid substantial tuition for the Spring 2020 semester. Manhattan College decided to close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Beck claims to be deprived the benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities, student activities and other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition. Manhattan College refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Toptani, Esq. TOPTANI LAW PLLC 375 Pearl Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10038 Tel: (212) 699-8930 Email: edward@toptanilaw.com - and - Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey IV, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Tel: (843) 614-8888 Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com MAST BROTHERS: Fischler Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mast Brothers, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Mast Brothers. Inc. doing business as: Mast Chocolate, Case No. 1:20-cv-02851 (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mast Brothers is an American artisinal chocolate company headquartered in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170-1830 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com MDL 2955: Transfer of Seven Class Suits to E.D. Arkansas Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In MDL No. 2955, In Re: NATIONAL SKI PASS INSURANCE LITIGATION, Plaintiff James Bradley in the action captioned Bradley v. United Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-520-JM (E.D. Ark.), moves the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate and transfer seven related actions, and any tag-along actions, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas for coordinated and consolidated pretrial purposes. The Related Actions are: -- Bradley v. United Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-00520 (E.D. Ark.); -- Hunt v. The Vail Corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02463 (N.D. Cal.); -- Hoak v. United Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:20- cv-01152 (D. Colo.); -- Rossi v. Arch Insurance Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-00411 (W.D. Mo.); -- Jackson v. Arch Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv- 00496 (W.D. Mo.); -- OSBORN v. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv- 06345 (D.N.J.); and -- Parker v. Arch Insurance, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00377 (D. Utah). The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek H. Potts, Esq. THE POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP 3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: 713 963 8881 E-mail: dpotts@potts-law.com MDL 2956: Transfer of 8 Class Actions to E.D. Michigan Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In MDL No. 2956, IN RE: DENSO-MANUFACTURED TOYOTA FUEL PUMP MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, the Plaintiffs move the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer eight related actions to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Plaintiffs contend that the Eastern District of Michigan is a convenient location for all counsel and witnesses, accessible by several major airports. Although no case has been filed in this District yet, the majority of the cases have been filed in states that are relatively close to Michigan (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) and for which a transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan would not be burdensome. The Plaintiffs are Plaintiffs in four of the eight related actions against Toyota Motor North America, Inc. The case concerns certain Toyota vehicles that contain a defective low-pressure fuel pump manufactured by Denso Corporation, all of which have been recalled by Toyota. The Affected Vehicles include all Toyota and Lexus models that use the Denso low-pressure fuel pumps and fuel pump assemblies that begin with part number prefixes 23220- and 23221-. Toyota has instituted multiple safety recalls in the United States concerning the defective low-pressure fuel pumps, including one on January 13, 2020, when Toyota submitted a safety recall report (January 2020 Recall Report) to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration voluntarily recalling nearly 700,000 Toyota and Lexus vehicles. That recall report was supplemented and amended such that Affected Vehicles now include over 1.8 million vehicles and at least the following Toyota and Lexus models: -- 2018–2019 Toyota Avalon; -- 2018–2019 Toyota Camry; -- 2018–2019 Toyota Corolla; -- 2014 Toyota FJ Cruiser; -- 2018–2019 Toyota Highlander; -- 2014–2015, 2018–2019 Toyota Land Cruiser; and -- 2018–2019 Toyota Sequoia. The related cases are: -- Elizabeth Gendron et al v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-00775 (C.D. Cal.); -- Tordjman v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc, et al., Case No. 9:20-cv-80871 (S.D. Fla.); -- ZUO v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-06607 (D.N.J.); -- Cheng v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv- 00629 (E.D.N.Y.); -- Chalal v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20- cv-02450 (E.D.N.Y.); -- Feng v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02493 (E.D.N.Y.); -- Shoemaker v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00869 (M.D. Pa.); and -- Marques, et al. v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00665 (E.D. Va.). The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com jerrodp@hbsslaw.com MDL 2957: Transfer of 38 Class Suits to N.D. Illinois Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In MDL No. 2957, IN RE: COVID-19 Airfare Refund Litigation, Movants Deanna Herr, Winifredo Herrera, Macaria Herrera, Jamie Sweet, Stephanie Faust, Anthony Greaves, Minely Diaz, Milica Milosevic, Carlos W. Martinez-Sanchez, Kathy Belanger, Robert Chandler, Martha Dumitrescu, Kevin Polk, and Paula Gimello move the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation for an Order transferring 38 putative class actions, as well as any tag-along cases, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois or, alternatively, to any other court with the capacity to facilitate their expeditious litigation, for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The class actions allege that foreign and domestic passenger airlines have refused to offer required refunds for flights that they canceled in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Movants are the plaintiffs in 12 of the Actions. As alleged in the Actions, the Defendant airlines have each refused to honor the refund obligations imposed on them by their own contractual agreements and federal law. Instead, they have offered their customers an unwanted raincheck, functionally taking an interest free bridge loan (which in many cases will never be repaid before the voucher expires) from their customers in addition to the billions of taxpayer dollars provided in the form of federal bailouts. As a result, passengers nationwide have been deprived of refunds to which they are entitled for flights that they did not take, in the midst of the greatest economic crisis in living memory. The Movants contend that the overwhelming factual similarities across the Actions combined with the legal streamlining provided by preemption of non-contractual claims make these cases ideally suited for centralization. Centralization will provide a uniform and orderly resolution to this industry-wide practice that has disadvantaged people across the United States in a time of great need. It will avoid wasting the resources of the parties and of courts across the country, and ensure consistency of important pre-trial rulings, including on class certification. On April 3, 2020, the United States Department of Transportation issued a notice to remind airlines, including the Defendants "that passengers should be refunded promptly when their scheduled flights are cancelled or significantly delayed." It notes that "although the COVID-19 public health emergency has had an unprecedented impact on air travel, the airlines' obligation to refund passengers for cancelled or significantly delayed flights remains unchanged." The 38 putative class actions are: -- Anthony Castanares, et al. v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Case No. 2:20-cv-04261 (C.D. Cal.); -- Carlos A. Jauregui v. China Eastern Airlines Corporation Limited, Case No. 2:20-cv-04552 (C.D. Cal.); -- Cherish Daversa-Evdyriadis v. Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00767 (C.D. Cal.); -- Karla Maree v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Case No. 8:20-cv-00885 (C.D. Cal.); -- Obertman v. Frontier Airlines Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00820 (E.D. Cal.); -- Herrera, et al. v. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., Case No. 3:20-cv-03019 in (N.D. Cal.); -- Bugarin v. All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd., Case No. 5:20-cv- 03341 (N.D. Cal.); -- Young v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01153 (D. Colo.); -- Sweet, et al. v. Frontier Airlines, Case No. 1:20-cv-01340 (D. Colo.); -- Obertman v. Frontier Airlines Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01689 (D. Colo.); -- Johnson v. Frontier Airlines, Case No. 1:20-cv-01751 (D. Colo.); -- Levu v. Air Canada, Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00703 in (M.D. Fla.); -- Hill v. Spirit Airlines Inc., Case No. 0:20-cv-60746 (S.D. Fla.); -- Boucher v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., Case No. 0:20-cv-60829 (S.D. Fla.); -- Diaz v. Spirit Airlines Inc., Case No. 0:20-cv-60933 (S.D. Fla.); -- Manchur v. Spirit Airlines Inc., Case No. 0:20-cv-61003 (S.D. Fla.); -- Daniels v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01664 (N.D. Ga.); -- Dusko v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01725 (N.D. Ga.); -- Polk v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02461 (N.D. Ga.); -- Alvarez v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00175 (D. Haw.); -- Rudolph v. United Airlines Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02142 (N.D. Ill.); -- Compo v. United Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv- 02166 (N.D. Ill.); -- Levey v. Concesionaria Vuela Compania de Aviacion, S.A.P.I. de C.V., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02215 (N.D. Ill.) -- Belanger v. Iberia Lineas Aereas De Espana S.A. Operadora, Case No. 1:20-cv-03087 (N.D. Ill.); -- Bratcher v. Allegiant Travel Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00767 (D. Nev.); -- Herr v. Allegiant Air, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01002 (D. Nev.); -- Roman v. Jetblue Airways Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-01829 (E.D.N.Y.); -- Martinez-Sanchez v. Concesionaria Vuela Compania De Aviacion S.A.P.I. De C.V., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01966 (E.D.N.Y.); -- Greaves v. Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA, Case No. 1:20-cv-02121 (E.D.N.Y.); -- Dumitrescu v. Compania Panamena De Aviacion, S.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-02125 (E.D.N.Y.); -- Sholopa v. Turkish Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03294 (S.D.N.Y.); -- Milosevic v. Turk Hava Yollari A.O, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03328 (S.D.N.Y.); -- Ide v. British Airways PLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03542 (S.D.N.Y.); -- Vozzolo v. Air Canada, Case No. 7:20-cv-03503 (S.D.N.Y.); -- Utley, et al. v. United Airlines Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00756 (N.D. Ohio); -- Chandler v. Condor Flugdienst GMBH, Case No. 3:20-cv-00810 (D. Ore.); -- GIMELLO v. AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP INC., Case No. 2:20-cv- 02834 (E.D. Pa.); -- BOMBIN v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 5:20-cv-01883 (E.D. Pa.); and -- Ward v. American Airlines, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-00371 (N.D. Tex.). The Movants are represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: 313-392-0015 Facsimile: 313-392-0025 E-mail: ncoulson@ldclassaction.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Parties Agree to Dismiss Atkins Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the class action suit styled, Atkins et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (D.Nev., filed November 18, 2019), have filed a stipulation of voluntarily dismissal of the action without prejudice, according to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. Plaintiffs filed the putative class action on behalf of all persons due benefits under group annuity contracts but who did not receive the entire amount to which they were entitled. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and conversion based on allegations that the defendants failed to timely pay annuity benefits to certain group annuitants. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and other relief. On April 17, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntarily dismissal of the action without prejudice. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management services in the United States. The company was incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. MIDLAND CREDIT: Amansec Disputes Collection Letter -------------------------------------------------- Rommel Amansec, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00752, (S.D. Cal., April 20, 2020), requests statutory damages, actual damages and attorney's fees and costs of suit along with injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland sent Amansec a letter in an attempt to collect a personal loan to Webbank/Fingerhut Credit. Amansec disputed owing the debt, claiming that he paid the debt in full in November 2015. Midland Credit is a debt collection agency based in 3111 Camino Del Rio North Ste. 103, San Diego. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Borison, Esq. 1900 S. Norfolk St. Suite 350 San Mateo, CA 94403 Tel: (301) 620-1016 Email: Scott@borisonfirm.com - and - Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telefax: (201) 273-7117 Email: ykim@kimlf.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Spitz Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Spitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, -v.- Midland Credit Management, Inc. and John Does 1-25. Defendant(s), Case No. 1:20-cv-02794 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of a class of New York consumers under §1692 et seq. of Title 15 of the United States Code, commonly referred to as the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. According to the complaint, some time prior to December 2, 2019, an obligation was allegedly incurred to American Express by the Plaintiff. The American Express obligation arose out of transactions in which money, property, insurance or services which are the subject of the transactions were primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The alleged American Express obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692a(5). Defendant MCM, a debt collector, was contracted by American Express, to collect the alleged debt which originated with American Express. On or about December 2, 2019, Defendant MCM sent Plaintiff a collection letter regarding the alleged debt currently owed to Defendant American Express. The letter makes the consumer an offer of new Card membership contingent upon the consumer's payment in full of the American Express account listed at the top of the letter. One of the conditions requires that American Express determine whether the consumer has the financial capacity to make the minimum payment on the new account. This condition essentially gives the right to American Express to arbitrarily reject the consumer's application based on their determination alone. Defendant's offer is deceptive by stating that upon payment and fulfillment of the conditions listed, the consumer will be approved for a new card, when they can reject the consumer's application based on their own arbitrary determination. Defendant is using a "bait and switch" approach to persuade the consumer to pay the full balance in the hopes of obtaining a new card, when Defendant can reject the application based on their determination alone. As a result of Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, Plaintiff has been damaged. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com MJLST LLC: Violates Americans With Disabilities Act, Laufer Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH LAUFER, Individually, v. M.J.L.S.T., LLC d/b/a WATERFRONT HOTEL & MARINA, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-03527 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other individuals similarly situated seeking injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a resident of Pasco County, Florida, and qualifies as an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. The Defendant owns a place of lodging known as Waterfront Hotel & Marina in Johnsburg, Illinois. Prior to the commencement of this lawsuit, the Plaintiff visited the Web sites, http://booking.com/,http://orbitz.com/, http://priceline.com/and http://expedia.com/,on multiple occasions for the purpose of reviewing and assessing the accessible features at the Property and ascertain whether they meet the requirements of 28 C.F.R. Section 36.302(e) and her accessibility needs. However, the Plaintiff was unable to do so because the Defendant failed to comply with the requirements set forth in 28 C.F.R. Section 36.302(e). As a result, Plaintiff was deprived the same goods, services, features, facilities, benefits, advantages, and accommodations of the Property available to the general public, the lawsuit says. The Defendant, either itself or by and through a third party, implemented, operates, controls and or maintains the Web sites for the Property, which contains an online reservations system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Corkill, Esq. THOMAS B. BACON, P.A. 7 N. Coyle Street Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: 850 375 3475 Facsimile: 877-828-4446 E-mail: kimberlyatlaw@gmail.com MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Abernathy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Cindy Abernathy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00042, (D. Utah, April 23, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs, including expert witness fees and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Molina provides managed health care services under the Medicaid and Medicare programs and through the state insurance marketplaces throughout the United States where Abernathy worked as a Medical Records Quality Assurance Senior Specialist conducting Healthcare Effectiveness Date and Information Set. She regularly works in excess of forty or fifty hours per week but did not receive overtime pay for hours regularly worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth M. Peck, Esq. PECK-LAW, EMPLOYMENT & CIVIL RIGHTS 111 N. Market St., Ste. 300 San Jose, CA 95113 Tel: (408) 478-3555 Email: lisa@peck-law.com MULTICARE HEALTH: Shortman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Theresa Shortman, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM, a Washington corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-05615 (W.D. Wash., June 26, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and invaded the Plaintiff's privacy by causing unsolicited text messages to be made to the Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular telephones through the use of an auto-dialer, without prior written express consent. The Defendant sent at least two unauthorized text messages to the Plaintiff's cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") for the purpose of soliciting business from the Plaintiff, according to the complaint. The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from unsolicited telephone calls and unsolicited messages exactly like those alleged in this case. The Plaintiff, Theresa Shortman, is a citizen of Washington. In response to the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all sending of unsolicited text messages to consumers, and an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class under the TCPA. Multicare Health System, is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Tacoma, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Walter Smith, Esq. SMITH & DIETRICH LAW OFFICES, PLLC 3905 Martin Way East, Suite F Olympia, WA 98506 Phone: 360-915-6952 Email: walter@smithdietrich.com - and - Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Phone: 847-368-1500 Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com MYLAN NV: Faces PERS of MS Suit Over Declining Price of Shares -------------------------------------------------------------- Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. MYLAN N.V., HEATHER BRESCH, RAJIV MALIK, ANTHONY MAURO, and KENNETH PARKS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00955-NR (W.D. Pa., June 26, 2020), is brought against Mylan and certain of its senior executives under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all investors, who purchased Mylan's common stock between February 16, 2016, and May 7, 2019, inclusive, who has been damaged as a result of declining share price. In September 2015, a former Mylan employee turned whistleblower disclosed to the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") that, under the direct leadership of Mylan President Rajiv Malik, Mylan employees had been manipulating drug test results to achieve passing quality control results, and deliberately corrupting testing data by, among other techniques, intentionally crashing Mylan testing computers to evade FDA detection. On November 7, 2016, after receiving the whistleblower complaint, inspectors arrived unannounced at Mylan's Morgantown facility to conduct an 11-day investigation. Upon investigating, the FDA discovered thousands of random files containing what appeared to be forbidden exploratory tests, a tactic some drug-makers have used to prevent quality failures from coming to light. As a result, on November 18, 2016, the FDA privately issued to Mylan a 23-page citation detailing these findings and putting Mylan on notice that remediation efforts were to begin promptly. On June 28, 2018, Mylan disclosed that the FDA had conducted a four-week investigation into the Morgantown facility in the spring of 2018, which culminated in the FDA's issuance of its second citation in less than two years. On this news, Mylan's share price fell $1.12 per share, or approximately 3%, from $37.45 per share to $36.33 per share. Finally, on May 7, 2019, Mylan reported a surprise loss for the first quarter of 2019 due, in part, to additional costs associated with the Morgantown restructuring. Mylan reported that its revenues and earnings-per-share were down year-over-year by 7% and 15%, respectively, as Mylan discontinued manufacturing certain products in the Morgantown facility, and that its quarterly adjusted free cash flow was severely lacking, now matching its 2015 levels. On this news, Mylan's share price fell $6.73 per share, or approximately 24%, from $28.26 per share to $21.53 per share. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions, including statements regarding Mylan's Morgantown plant, and engaged in a scheme to deceive the market. This artificially inflated the price of Mylan common stock and operated as a fraud or deceit on the Class. Later, when the Defendants' prior misrepresentations and risks concealed by the fraudulent conduct, alleged in this complaint, materialized and were disclosed to the market, the price of Mylan common stock fell precipitously. As a result of their acquisition of Mylan common stock during the Class Period--and the Defendants' material misstatements and omissions--the Plaintiff says it and other members of the Class suffered economic loss, i.e., damages, under the federal securities laws. The Plaintiff is a pension fund established for the benefit of the current and retired public employees of the State of Mississippi, who purchased Mylan common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Mylan is the second largest generic drug manufacturer in the world with roughly 55 manufacturing and R&D facilities globally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Janet Burkardt, Esq. WEISS BURKARDT KRAMER LLC 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 391-9890 Facsimile: (412) 391-9685 Email: jburkardt@wbklegal.com - and - Gerald H. Silk, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 554-1400 Email: jerry@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com NATURE MED PREMIUM: Duboise Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts ----------------------------------------------------------- Sharyl Duboise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nature Med Premium LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00176 (D. Ariz., April 23, 2020), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Nature Med Premium is a cannabis shop and dispensary. To promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer. Duboise did not give express consent to receive such texts, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: gberg@shamisgentile.com NEW YORK, NY: Curfew Violates Residents' Rights, Jeffery Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- LAMEL JEFFERY, THADDEUS BLAKE, and CHAYSE PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, BILL DE BLASIO, ANDREW CUOMO, and P.O.s JOHN DOE #1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02843-NGG-RML (E.D.N.Y., June 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for deprivation of federal rights, municipal liability, and violations of First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated residents in New York City, allege that the City of New York, under the supervision of Mayor Bill De Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo and acting through the New York City Police Department (NYPD), implemented and maintained unconstitutional customs, policies, and practices. These include: (1) establishing, implanting and enforcing Curfew Orders in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) subjecting thousands of New Yorkers to deprivations of liberty, freedom of movement and travel, assembly and speech in the form of stops, searches, seizures, arrests, summonses, handcuffing and criminal prosecution for doing nothing more than being outside of their homes in public after 8 p.m. and engaged in otherwise lawful activity; (3) enforcing illegal Curfew Orders primarily, predominantly and impermissibly on Black and minority residents of New York City in violation of their constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law; (4) subjecting millions of New Yorkers to false imprisonment, deprivation of their freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly in the form of house arrest under threat of confrontation with police, search, seizure, arrest and/or criminal prosecution; (5) establishing and enforcing Curfew Orders that were unnecessary and unjustified under the circumstances as criminal activity prior to the imposing of the Curfew Orders was quite limited in scope, severity, and location; (6) establishing and enforcing Curfew Orders were unconstitutionally overbroad, and not narrowly or rationally tailored to the purported dangers for which they were designed to protect; (7) establishing and enforcing Curfew Orders were overly severe in comparison to the dangers presented prior to their institution and overly restrictive and unbalance in proportion to the liberty interest at stake and level of constitutional infringement. The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures, and rules of the City of New York and the NYPD constituted deliberate indifference to the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the Class. The City of New York is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua P. Fitch, Esq. Gerald M. Cohen, Esq. Ilyssa S. Fuchs, Esq. COHEN & FITCH LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 374-9115 NEW YORK: Second Cir. Appeal v. Guzman 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 entered on May 19, 2020, 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 of Education, Case No. 20-1853, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Gladys Guzman 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 NOBLE HOUSE: Faces Servin Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Noble House Home Furnishings LLC. The case is captioned as ALFONSO SERVIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NOBLE HOUSE HOME FURNISHINGS LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Case No. 20CMCV00152 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 16, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws. A case management conference will be held on Nov. 25, 2020. Noble House is doing business in the furniture industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackerman, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF PC 1180 S Beverly Dr., Ste. 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Obalon Therapeutics, 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 settlement has been reached in the consolidated class action suit spearheaded by Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT. On February 14 and 22, 2018, plaintiff stockholders filed class action lawsuits against the company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG, and Cook v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00407-CAB-RBB). On July 24, 2018, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff. On October 5, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that the company and certain of its executive officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 11 of the Exchange Act arising out of the Company's initial public offering. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. The underwriters from the company's initial public offering have also been named as defendants in this case and the company had certain obligations under the underwriting agreement to indemnify them for their costs and expenses incurred in connection with this litigation. On September 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the Section 11 claims entirely, without leave to amend, and accordingly dismissed the underwriters and certain directors from the case. The Court also dismissed certain statements from the Section 10 claims. On June 16, 2020, the parties reached a settlement of the securities class action, and they intend to submit a final settlement agreement for court approval. The settlement provides for a payment of $3.15 million to the plaintiffs, and provides that the defendants continue to deny the allegations and claims asserted by the plaintiffs, and are entering into the settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation. The Company expects that any amounts due as part of the settlement will be covered by the Company's insurance policies. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., a vertically integrated medical device company, focuses on developing and commercializing medical devices to treat people who are obese and overweight. The company offers the Obalon balloon system designed to provide weight loss in obese patients. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Carlsbad, California. OSMOTICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in N.J. ----------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint consolidating two putative class actions filed in New Jersey against Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, among other defendants, related to the Company's initial public offering of ordinary shares, is still pending, 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. On April 30, 2019, Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc was served with a complaint in an action entitled Leo Shumacher, et al., v. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County No. SOM-L-000540-19. On May 10, 2019, a Complaint entitled Jeffrey Tello, et al., v. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County No. SOM-L-000617-19 was filed in the same court as the Shumacher action. The complaints name Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, certain of its directors and officers and the underwriters of its initial public offering as defendants in putative class actions alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the disclosures contained in the registration statement and prospectus used for the Company's initial public offering of ordinary shares. On July 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint consolidating the two actions, reiterating the previously pled allegations and adding an additional individual defendant. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to vigorously defend against the action. The Company said, "This litigation matter is still in an early stage and there is no assurance that we will be successful in our defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action, which could adversely affect the Company's results of operations and financial condition. At this time there is no loss that is probable or reasonably estimatable." Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, an integrated biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the United States, Argentina, and Hungary. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. PALM ROYALE: Weaver Sues Under TCPA Over Unsolicited Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- Melizza Weaver, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Palm Royale Collective, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-01284 (C.D. Cal., June 26, 2020), is brought for damages resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant in negligently placing unsolicited automated text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant has violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to bombard consumers' mobile phones with non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior express written consent, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff did not give the Defendant prior express written consent to send text messages to her cellular telephone number by using an automatic telephone dialing system. The Plaintiff is an individual, who resided in Palm Springs, California. PRC is a cannabis dispensary.[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 Facsimile: 800.520.5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com - and - Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: yana@kazlg.com PATTERSON COS: Plymouth Retirement System Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 25, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit captioned as Plymouth County Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino, Case No. 0:18-CV-00871 MJD/SER. On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System ("Plymouth") filed a federal securities class action complaint against Patterson Companies, Inc. and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO Ann B. Gugino in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino, Case No. 0:18-cv-00871 MJD/SER. On November 9, 2018, the complaint was amended to add former CEO James W. Wiltz and former CFO R. Stephen Armstrong as individual defendants. Under the amended complaint, on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson's common stock between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges that Patterson violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that Patterson's revenue and earnings were "artificially inflated by Defendants' illicit, anti-competitive scheme with its purported competitors, Benco and Schein, to prevent the formation of buying groups that would allow its customers who were office-based practitioners to take advantage of pricing arrangements identical or comparable to those enjoyed by large-group customers." In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second, related count against the individual defendants for violating Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plymouth seeks compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' witness fees and costs. On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs. On January 18, 2019, Patterson and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 25, 2019, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The report and recommendation, among other things, recommends the dismissal of all claims against individuals defendants Ann B. Gugino, R. Stephen Armstrong and James W. Wiltz. On September 10, 2019, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the company believes that the class action complaint is without merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this litigation. Patterson said, "We do not anticipate that this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. Patterson has also received, and responded to, requests under Minnesota Business Corporation Act Section 302A.461 to inspect corporate books and records relating to the issues raised in the securities class action complaint and certain antitrust litigation. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. PITTSBURGH, PA: Rulli Sues Over Breaches of Constitutional Rights ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE RULLI, individually and on behalf of her minor son, A.F.; CHARLES BRYANT JR.; SIMON PHILLIPS; DONOVAN HAYDEN; JENNIFER "JAY" YODER; and CHRISTOPHER WILSON JURING, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH; WILLIAM PEDUTO, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh; WENDELL HISSRICH, individually and in his official capacity as Director of Public Safety for the City of Pittsburgh; SCOTT SCHUBERT, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police; STEPHEN VINANSKY, Commander of Zone 5 of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, in his individual capacity, JASON LANDO, Commander of Narcotics and Vice for the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, in his individual capacity, JOHN DOE, Tactical Commander, in his individual capacity, Case No. 2:20-cv-00965-LPL (W.D. Pa., June 29, 2020), alleges that the Defendants' conduct in response to a peaceful protest violated the Plaintiffs': -- First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution to freedom of speech and assembly; -- Fourth Amendment rights to be free from excessive force and false arrest; and -- Fourteenth Amendment right not to be subject to official governmental policies, which violate their constitutional rights. The Plaintiffs are residents of the City of Pittsburgh. On June 1, 2020, people from Pittsburgh and surrounding communities assembled in the East Liberty neighborhood of the City of Pittsburgh to add their voices to these nationwide protests and seek change locally. The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police ("PBP") responded by escalating a peaceful protest into a scene of pandemonium, panic, violence and bloodshed. The PBP deployed hundreds of officers to counter approximately 150 protesters. As the assembled protesters held their hands in the air and chanted, "This is not a riot," and "Hands up--Don't shoot," PBP ordered its officers to attack them with explosives, chemical agents and ammunition which is known to seriously wound and sometimes kill its targets, the Plaintiffs say. The Plaintiffs assembled in East Liberty to protest the routine covering up of police misconduct and abuse. In response, City of Pittsburgh officials, including the Mayor, Public Safety Director and Chief of Police, disseminated flagrant lies to conceal and/or justify the PBP's shameless use of force against peaceful protesters. These officials accused protesters of hurling rocks and "volleys of bricks" at PBP officers, and vehemently denied using chemical agents. Numerous videos demonstrate that these statements were patently false. The Plaintiffs are peaceful protesters who were subjected to police violence while protesting police violence, says the complaint. According to the complaint, PBP officers drove ambulances past injured protesters without stopping. After ordering peaceful protesters to leave the area, PBP officers blocked their escape with chemical gas, riot police and mounted patrols. PBP then arrested several protestors for failing to disperse, subjecting them to confinement in the midst of a global COVID-19 pandemic. The PBP ordered tactical officers dressed in paramilitary garb to patrol a residential neighborhood in armored vehicles and arbitrarily throw canisters of chemical gas at and/or arrest anyone they encountered. The City of Pittsburgh is a municipality within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business located at 414 Grant Street, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Margaret S. Coleman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY P. O'BRIEN 535 Smithfield Street, Suite 1025 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 232-4400 Email: msc@obrienlawpgh.com - and - Quinn Cozzens, Esq. Bret Grote, Esq. Jamelia N. Morgan, Esq. ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER PO Box 8654 Pittsburgh, PA 15221 Phone: 717-419-6583 Email: qcozzens@alcenter.org bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org - and - Christine T. Elzer, Esq. ELZER LAW FIRM, LLC 100 First Avenue, Suite 1010 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 230-8436 PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Valadez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, et al. The case is styled as Whitney Valadez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-00959 (E.D. Wis., June 26, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, provides debt recovery and collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com PORTX INC: Sirin Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NJWHL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merve Sirin, Melis Barnett-Alpinar, and Kutay Akyuz, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. PORTX, INC., PETER EYUP ULU, and SANDY SENAY ULU, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:20-cv-07853 (D.N.J., June 26, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid wages owed to them pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiffs were each compensated straight time for all hours worked, despite the fact that they were non-exempt employees and routinely worked in excess of 40 hours each week, according to the complaint. The Defendants' payment schemes resulted in the systematic underpayment of wages to the Plaintiffs, in violation of the federal and state wage laws. The Plaintiffs were former employees at the Defendants' logistics company located in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey. The Defendants operate a licensed and insured New Jersey logistics company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert D. Salaman, Esq. AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 825-1400 Email: rob@akinlaws.com PRET A MANGER: Barton Balks at "Natural" Label on Food Products --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA BARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRET A MANGER (USA) LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04815 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers throughout the State of New York, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in deceptive, misleading and false advertising and labeling of Pret A Manger food products. The Defendant markets and labels the products as natural when in fact, the products contain soya, a genetically modified organism (GMO), as well as numerous other synthetic ingredients. The Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the products and relied on Defendant's misrepresentations that they are natural. By its wrongful acts, the Defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of, and to the detriment of, the Plaintiff and Class members. Pret A Manger (USA) Limited is a food and beverages company located at 853 Broadway New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Jeremy Francis, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and – Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com PRO CUSTOM SOLAR: Baker Sues in D. Vermont Over Violation of TCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pro Custom Solar LLC. The case is styled as Tyler Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pro Custom Solar LLC, doing business as: Momentum Solar, a New Jersey limited Liability company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00092-jmc (D. Vt., June 29, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Pro Custom Solar LLC, doing business as Momentum Solar, provides renewable energy services. The Company specializes in solar designing, engineering, permitting, installation, and activation of every systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Email: ari@marcuszelman.com PROASSURANCE CORP: Faces Suit over 22% Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------- SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 19 PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROASSURANCE CORPORATION; W. STANCIL STARNES; EDWARD L. RAND, JR.; DANA S. HENDRICKS; HOWARD H. FRIEDMAN; and MICHAEL L. BOGUSKI, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-00856-GMB (N.D. Ala., June 16, 2020) is an action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ProAssurance common stock from April 26, 2019 through May 7, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants misrepresented the Company's underwriting and reserve standards, and failed to adequately reserve for losses. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and 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 materially heightened risk of financial loss and reserve charges. On January 22, 2020, ProAssurance announced that because of a deteriorating loss experience related mainly 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. 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. ProAssurance Corporation is a risk management and claims defense company with a license to write business across the United States. The Company provides medical professional liability insurance to policy holders throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven B. Singer, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, 8th Floor White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 631-3611 E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com - and - Joseph E. White, III Lester R. Hooker, Esq. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com - and - David J. Guin, Esq. Tammy M. Stokes, Esq. Dawn Stith Evans, Esq. GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC 300 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. N. Suite 600, Title Bldg. Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 226-2282 E-mail: davidg@gseattorneys.com tammys@gseattorneys.com devans@gseattorneys.com RED TIE LLC: Shafer Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Shafer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RED TIE, LLC dba RED TIE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; MIKE MUDARIS, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-05726 (C.D. Cal., June 26, 2020), is brought for damages due to the Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, charging illegal kickbacks and illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips. During her time being employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff alleges that she was denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify the Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors." The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA, according to the complaint. The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime work at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Furthermore, the Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped employees pursuant to the FLSA, violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision. The Plaintiff has worked as a dancer for the Defendants from July 2018 to present. The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility located in Van Nuys, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jacob J. Ventura, Esq. KRISTENSEN, LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Phone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: 310-507-7906 Email: john@kristensenlaw.com jesenia@kristensenlaw.com jacob@kristensenlaw.com REGIS CORP: Awaits Court's Approval of Settlements -------------------------------------------------- Regis Corporation 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 is awaiting the court's approval of the class action settlements in the two wage-and-hour lawsuits in California. Regis is a defendant in two wage and hour lawsuits in California. The first, a class action in US District Court, alleges various violations of the California Labor Code, including but not limited to failure to pay wages, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to pay all wages due on termination of employment, waiting time penalties, failure to provide accurate wage statements and violation of the business and professions code. This case has preliminarily settled, pending approval of the court and class, for $2.1 million. The second, a class action filed in California Superior Court, alleges various violations of the California Labor Code as well as The Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) penalties. Barring successful objection from plaintiffs' attorneys to the first class action, the second case will be subsumed into the first case's settlement. As of June 30, 2019 and March 31, 2020, $1.5 and $2.1 million, respectively, was included within accrued expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet related to these class action lawsuits. Regis Corporation is an American operator of hair salons, and the largest such chain in the world, with over 10,000 salons. It has its headquarters in Saint Louis Park, Minnesota. REWALK ROBOTICS: Appeal to Revive Securities Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- ReWalk Robotics Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal in the Massachusetts securities class action remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Between September 2016 and January 2017, eight putative class actions on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to its registration statement on Form F-1 (File No. 333-197344) used in connection with the initial public offering, or the Company's IPO, were commenced in the following courts: (i) the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo; (ii) the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County; (iii) the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; and (iv) the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As of March 31, 2020, all complaints have been dismissed, with one dismissal appealed. The actions involved or involve claims under various sections of the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act, against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and officers, the underwriters of the Company's IPO and certain other defendants. The four actions commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo were dismissed in January 2017 for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the action commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California was voluntarily dismissed in March 2017. Additionally, the two actions commenced in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, or the Superior Court, were consolidated in December 2017, and voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in November 2018, after the District Court for the District of Massachusetts partially dismissed the related claims in that court and the parties in the Superior Court entered a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. The action commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, was partially dismissed on August 23, 2018. In particular, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead a false or misleading statement in the IPO registration statement. The District Court did not address the claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because, as a result of the dismissal of the claims under the Securities Act, the lead plaintiff lacked standing to pursue those claims. Because the action in the District Court was styled as a class action, the District Court permitted the plaintiff to file a supplemental memorandum concerning standing or a motion to appoint a substitute or supplemental plaintiff. On September 10, 2018, the plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint to add a new plaintiff that purportedly has standing to pursue Exchange Act claims, and the Company opposed the motion to amend on September 24, 2018. On May 16, 2019, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend and the complaint was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff timely appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed and the court held oral arguments on March 2, 2020. Based on information currently available and the current stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably estimable. ReWalk Robotics Ltd., a medical device company, designs, develops, and commercializes exoskeletons for wheelchair-bound individuals with mobility impairments or other medical conditions. The company was formerly known as Argo Medical Technologies Ltd. ReWalk Robotics Ltd. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Yokne'am Illit, Israel SALADINO'S INC: Faces Aranda Employment Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saladino's Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Julio Lenarch Aranda, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Saladino's Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2020-00280800-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 16, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws. A case management conference will be held on Dec. 31, 2020. Saladino's, Inc., operates as a food service distribution company. The Company distributes beverages, cheeses, dairy products, disposables, equipment, fresh produce, grocery items, janitorial and linen products, meat commodities, meats, seafood, smallwares, and other products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tatiana Hernandez, Esq. PO Box 1973 Hawthorne, CA 90251-1973 Telephone: (310) 623-2089 E-mail: tatianahernandezlaw@gmail.com SALLIE MAE: Second Circuit Appeal Initiated in Homaidan Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants Sallie Mae, Incorporated, Navient Solutions LLC, and Navient Credit Finance Corporation filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled In re: HILAL KHALIL HOMAIDAN, aka HELAL K HOMAIDAN, Chapter 7, Debtor, HILAL KHALIL HOMAIDAN, Plaintiff v. SLM CORPORATION, SALLIE MAE, INC., NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 17-bk-1085, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 27, 2019, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a Memorandum Decision denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case. Hilal Khalil Homaidan, aka Helal K. Homaidan, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, Case No. 08-48275. Mr. Homaidan filed his schedules and statements and filed certain amended schedules. In his Schedule F, Creditors Holding Unsecured Nonpriority Claims, he listed Tuition Answer loans owed to Sallie Mae in the amounts of $7,983.19 and $8,190.11. The Chapter 7 Trustee filed a no-asset report stating that the estate has no non-exempt property to distribute. Mr. Homaidan moved to reopen his bankruptcy case to obtain a determination of the dischargeability of certain of his student loans. The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Hilal Khalil Homaidan, Case No. 20-1981, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Reeham Yousseff, and Hilal K. Homaidan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jason Walker Burge, Esq. FISHMAN HAYGOOD L.L.P. 201 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 586-5241 E-mail: jburge@fishmanhaygood.com - and - George F. Carpinello, Esq. Adam R. Shaw, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 30 South Pearl Street Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 434-0600 E-mail: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com ashaw@bsfllp.com - and - Austin Smith, Esq. SMITH LAW GROUP 3 Mitchell Place New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (917) 992-2121 E-mail: austin@acsmithlawgroup.com - and - Lynn E. Swanson, Esq. JONES SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC 601 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 523-2500 E-mail: lswanson@jonesswanson.com Defendants-Appellants Sallie Mae, Incorporated, Navient Solutions LLC, and Navient Credit Finance Corporation are represented by: Thomas Miles Farrell, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 600 Travis Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 571-9191 E-mail: tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Dismisses Second Amended Ware Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TAWANNA AND ANTHONY WARE on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICAS, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00886 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Corrected Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("CSA Complaint"). The Wares filed a class action suit against Samsung alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("IFCA") and claims of unjust enrichment. On June 8, 2013, the Wares purchased a Samsung plasma television at a Best Buy store in Chicago, Illinois. They also purchased a five-year Best Buy warranty plan for their television because Samsung only provided a one-year warranty. In late 2014, Samsung stopped manufacturing plasma televisions and stopped inventorying parts to repair the plasma televisions it had previously made and sold. In May 2017, 4 years after purchasing the television, while the Wares resided in North Carolina, the Ware's television failed and required replacement parts. Best Buy informed the Wares that the Samsung original equipment manufacturer ("OEM") parts necessary to fix their television were no longer available. As a result, the Wares were unable to repair their plasma television. The average lifespan of a television is 7.4 years. The Wares filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Samsung violated the IFCA (Counts II and IV) and was unjustly enriched by purchasers of its Samsung plasma televisions (Counts III and V). On June 3, 2019, the Court dismissed the First Amended Class Action Complaint against Samsung without prejudice. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed the CSA Complaint presently at issue. Since the Wares do not adequately allege that Samsung violated public policy or engaged in oppressive conduct, the Wares have failed to state a plausible claim under the ICFA. Because the Wares allege that Samsung's unfair conduct was the sale of plasma televisions in 2013 with no intention to provide repair parts, rather than the failure to provide repair parts in 2017, the fact that the Wares were deprived of a meaningful choice in 2017 is irrelevant. To establish a violation of the ICFA, the Wares must have been denied a meaningful choice at the time of sale. The Wares have not made any such allegation. Count II and IV are dismissed with prejudice. Samsung moves to dismiss the Wares' unjust enrichment claims that are predicated on the same underlying conduct that supports their ICFA claims. Because the Court concludes that the Wares' ICFA claims do not survive, the unjust enrichment claims also fail. Counts III and V of the Plaintiffs' CSA Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rowland granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts II through V of the Plaintiffs' CSA Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 20, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/Uy2FyH from Leagle.com. Tawanna Ware, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated & Anthony Ware, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Kyla V. Alexander, Law Office of Attormey Paul S. Rothstein, pro hac vice, Thomas Cusack Cronin -- tcc@cronincoltd.com -- Cronin & Co., Ltd. & Paul Stuart Rothstein, Law Offices Of Attorney Paul S. Rothstein. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Michael J. Mueller -- mmueller@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Martin G. Durkin -- martin.durkin@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLC, Michael A. Grill -- michael.grill@hklaw.com -- Holland and Knight, LLP & Thomas Richard Waskom -- twaskom@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton & Williams Llp. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Martin G. Durkin, Holland & Knight LLC, Michael A. Grill, Holland and Knight, LLP, Michael J. Mueller, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, pro hac vice, Tammy Tabush, Holland & Knight LLP & Thomas Richard Waskom, Hunton & Williams LLP. SAN FERNANDO VALLEY AUTO: Noorparvar Sues Over Spam Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHAHRIAR NOORPARVAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SAN FERNANDO VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE, LLC DBA RYDELL CHEVROLET-NORTHRIDGE, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-05583 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2020) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently and/or knowingly contacting Plaintiff, without implied or express consent, on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, Plaintiff did not provide Defendant and/or its agent with prior express consent to send unwelcomed text messages, including unsolicited text messages via an ATDS, to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. Plaintiff was personally affected because Plaintiff was frustrated and distressed that Defendant harassed Plaintiff with continuous solicitation text messages using an ATDS. Defendant's telephonic communications forced Plaintiff and class members to live without the utility of their cellular phones by forcing Plaintiff and class members to silence their cellular phones and/or block incoming numbers. San Fernando Valley Automotive, LLC is a California-based company that provides retail sale of new and used automobiles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, 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 mona@kazlg.com SARASOTA, FL: Court Denies Certification of FLSA Collective ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DESIREE ABELSON v. SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, Case No.8:19-cv-03092-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla.), Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington has denied Plaintiff's motion seeking conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act collective action on behalf of: "all former and current employees of Defendant who hold, or previously held, the positions of "Caseworker II" and "Caseworker III," in the three years prior to the filing of the complaint in this case." The Court said, "Although the Plaintiff's burden at the notice stage is not heavy, it is not invisible. Accordingly, federal courts across the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida have routinely denied requests for conditional certification where plaintiffs attempt to certify a broad class based only on the conclusory allegations of a few employees. Because Abelson has not met his burden of demonstrating that the other members of the putative collective action are similarly situated, her Motion must be denied." According to Abelson, although she was classified as "non-exempt" while working in the Caseworker II and Caseworker III positions, the County paid her for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at her standard hourly rate, as opposed to a time-and-a-half rate.[CC] SB ONE BANCORP: Facing Suit Over Provident Financial Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- SB One Bancorp said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company continues to defend putative class action suits related to its merger with Provident Financial. On March 11, 2020, Provident Financial Services, Inc. ("Provident Financial" or "Provident") and SB One Bancorp ("SB One") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which SB One will merge with and into Provident. As required by the merger agreement, the parties filed a proxy statement/prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on May 8, 2020. On June 6, 2020, one purported shareholder of SB One Bancorp filed a lawsuit against SB One and the members of the SB One board of directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of himself, captioned Gomez v. SB One Bancorp et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07023 (the "Gomez Merger Litigation"). The plaintiff alleges that the proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 8, 2020 and first mailed to SB One shareholders on or about May 13, 2020, contained materially incomplete disclosures about the merger. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, rescission of the merger or rescissory damages, other unspecified damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On June 15, 2020, another purported shareholder of SB One filed a putative class action lawsuit against SB One and the members of the SB One board of directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on behalf of himself and similarly situated SB One shareholders, captioned Parshall v. SB One Bancorp et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00809-UNA (together with the Gomez Merger Litigation, the "Merger Litigation"). The plaintiff alleges that the proxy statement/prospectus contained materially incomplete disclosures about the merger. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, rescission of the merger or rescissory damages, other unspecified damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On June 16, 2020, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, SB One and Provident have agreed to make additional disclosures to supplement the disclosures contained in the proxy statement/prospectus. The Additional Disclosures moot plaintiff's disclosure claims asserted in the Merger Litigation and, as a result, the plaintiffs have each agreed to dismiss the Merger Litigation with prejudice as to their individual claims and without prejudice to the claims of the putative members of the class. This agreement to make the Additional Disclosures will not affect the merger consideration to be paid in connection with the merger of SB One with and into Provident or the timing of the annual meeting of SB One's shareholders. SB One and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been alleged in the Merger Litigation, and expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal duties and are entering into the agreement to make the Additional Disclosures solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation, to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay to the closing of the merger that might arise from further litigation. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/3hZcLYZ. SB One Bancorp operates as a bank holding company for SB One Bank that provides commercial banking and related financial services to individual, business, and government customers. It operates in two segments, Banking and Financial Services, and Insurance Services. The company was formerly known as Sussex Bancorp and changed its name to SB One Bancorp in April 2018. SB One Bancorp was founded in 1975 and is based in Rockaway, New Jersey. SENTINEL INSURANCE CO: Lee Sues Over Denied Benefit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Lee, DDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05422 (W.D. Wash., May 4, 2020), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney fees and costs and such further and other relief for breach of contract. Andrew Lee, DDS, owns and operates a dental business located at 320 138th St., Tacoma, Washington 98444. Lee was prohibited from practicing dental services except for urgent and emergency procedures amidst the closure of all non-essential businesses during the COVID19 pandemic. Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited is an insurance carrier incorporated and domiciled in Connecticut. It issued an insurance policy to Lee that includes business income coverage, extra expense coverage, extended business income coverage and civil authority coverage. Lee asserts he was denied business interruption claims due to closure. [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 L. Nanfelt, Esq. 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. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 Email: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com ibirk@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com ihecht@kellerrohrback.com mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com - and - Alison Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Fax: (805) 456-1497 Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com SHAMROCK FOODS: Ruiz Lacks Article III Standing, 9th Cir. Affirms ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARIO RUIZ; RAUL GUERRERO; ROBERT TORRES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY, an Arizona corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-56209 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting Shamrock's motion for summary judgment. Ruiz, Guerrero, and Torres brought a putative class action lawsuit against their employer, Shamrock. The Plaintiffs allege that Shamrock violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by inadequately disclosing Shamrock's intent to obtain consumer reports on them, and by failing to receive the Plaintiffs' meaningful authorization of such action. The district court granted Shamrock's motion for summary judgment. Guerrero's and Torres' employment applications each included a FCRA disclosure and authorization form that referenced state law entitlements. Ruiz's employment application included a FCRA disclosure and authorization form that included a liability waiver. The Plaintiffs argue that the forms' references to state law, inclusion of a liability waiver, and inclusion as part of a lengthy employment application rendered the FCRA forms confusing. They contend that these alleged FCRA violations concretely injured them for Article III standing purposes, pursuant to the Court's decision in Syed v. M-I-, LLC. Syed did not hold that a violation of FCRA's disclosure requirement alone results in a concrete injury. Instead, the court identified the concrete injury as arising "when applicants are deprived of their ability to meaningfully authorize a credit check." The Court held that the plaintiff in Syed had adequately alleged such an injury because the Court inferred that he was confused by the inclusion of [a] liability waiver with the disclosure and would not have signed the authorization for the credit check had it contained a sufficiently clear disclosure. Unlike Syed, the Ruiz case arises at the summary judgment stage, after the parties have engaged in discovery and conducted depositions. The Plaintiffs were therefore required to produce admissible evidence establishing that they suffered a concrete injury as defined in Syed. They failed to do so. None of the Plaintiffs have shown that (1) they were confused by the inclusion of the references to state law and the liability waiver on the authorization form, and (2) would not have signed it had it contained a sufficiently clear disclosure. Accordingly, Shamrock has not encroached upon the Plaintiffs' statutory rights to information and privacy created by FCRA, the Ninth Circuit opines. The Plaintiffs have suffered no concrete injury and therefore lack Article III standing, the Ninth Circuit holds. Because the Ninth Circuit holds that the Plaintiffs lack standing, it does not reach the district court's alternative holding that the Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred. Because the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 20, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/ElYuOn from Leagle.com. SHIFTPIXY INC: Still Faces Splond Wage-and-Hour Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ ShiftPixy, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action suit initiated by Corey Splond, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2020. On April 8, 19,20 claimant, Corey Splond, filed a class action lawsuit, naming ShiftPixy, Inc. and its client as defendants, claiming that he was scheduled to work for more than 8 hours during 24-hour periods without being paid overtime, to which he was entitled. In addition, claimant is seeking waiting time penalties for the delay in payment. ShiftPixy said, "This lawsuit is in the initial stages; the financial impact to the Company, if any, cannot be estimated. No liability has been recorded for this matter at this time. In the event of an unfavorable outcome the Company's client is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for misreported hours and portions of the claim would be covered under the Company's employment practices liability insurance." ShiftPixy, Inc. provides employment services for businesses; and workers in shift or other part-time/temporary positions in the United States. The company also operates as a payroll processor, human resources consultant, and administrator of workers' compensation coverages and claims. It primarily serves restaurant, hospitality, and maintenance service industries. The company was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. SHUTTERFLY INC: Garfield Files 3rd Cir. Appeal in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Robert Garfield filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled Robert Garfield v. Shutterfly Inc., et al., Case No. 1-19-cv-01387, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on June 10, 2019, pursuant to which Shutterfly, Inc., will be acquired by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC, Photo Holdings, LLC and Photo Holdings Merger Sub, Inc. On June 10, 2019, Shutterfly's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Apollo. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Shutterfly's stockholders will receive $51.00 in cash for each share of Shutterfly common stock they own. On July 19, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The complaint asserts that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") in connection with the Proxy Statement. The appellate case is captioned as Robert Garfield v. Shutterfly Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2249, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT GARFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH & TAYLOR 1007 North Orange Street The Nemours Building, Suite 1120 P.O. Box 1680 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 984-3889 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com - and - Adam Frankel, Esq. GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES 881 Lave Avenue Greenwich, CT 06831 Telephone: (203) 622-6001 E-mail: blacoff@grwlegal.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com Defendant-Appellee SHUTTERFLY INC. is represented by: Daniel A. Mason, Esq. PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 655-4425 E-mail: dmason@paulweiss.com SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Calif. Case Settlement Awaits Court's Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ SIFCO Industries, 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 a settlement has been reached in a wage-and-hour class action suit that the Company is facing in California. A preliminary court approval hearing has been postponed and has not yet been re-scheduled. The Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, which was filed in August 2017, arising from employee wage-and-hour claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest break, hourly and overtime wage calculation, timely wage payment and necessary expenditure indemnification violations; failure to maintain required wage records and furnish accurate wage statements; and unfair competition. A settlement has been reached and was scheduled for preliminary court approval in April 2020. This date is currently postponed and has not yet been re-scheduled due to COVID-19. The Company previously recorded adequate reserves to cover the settlement. SIFCO Industries, Inc. produces and sells forgings and machined components primarily for the aerospace and energy markets in the United States and Europe. It was founded in 1916 and is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. SK ENERGY: Enriquez Sues Over Conspiracy in Gasoline Market ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.; SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.; VITOL INC.; DAVID NIEMANN; and BRAD LUCAS, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04122 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and for violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the Cartwright Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants are engaged in anticompetitive scheme in order to manipulate and raise the spot market price for gasoline in California. The Defendants took advantage of the unanticipated shortage of refined gasoline in California following an explosion incident at a gasoline refinery complex located in Torrance, California in February 2015 to artificially inflate the price of gasoline traded on wholesale spot markets in California and alkylate prices, which are tied directly to the wholesale price of gasoline. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful business conduct, the Plaintiff and the members of the Class suffered financial damages as they paid more for gasoline than they would have paid in a competitive market. Vitol Inc. is an energy and commodities company, with business office located at 2925 Richmond Avenue 11th Floor Houston, Texas. SK Energy Americas, Inc. is a petroleum and petroleum products company located in Houston, Texas and a wholly-owned subsidiary of SK Energy International. SK Trading International Co. Ltd. is a South Korean corporation that operates as an oil broking agency, with its head office at 26 Jongno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Eric D. Zard, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com ezard@carlsonlynch.com - and – Katrina Carroll, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com SKILLED INTERNATIONAL: Bankhead Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Paystubs ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Bankhead, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Skilled International LLC, Skilled Enterprises, Inc., Jimmy Duff, Carl Hudspeth, Dale Steed and Toni Qualls, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01442, (S.D. Tex., April 23, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Skilled International and Skilled Enterprises are an oilfield services company, where Bankhead worked as an equipment operator from approximately January 2018 to March 2020. Bankhead claims to regularly work in excess of forty hours per week without overtime and was denied accurate wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Renu Tandale, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 SMITH & NEPHEW: Taylor Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Issac Taylor, individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-02456-SHL (W.D. Tenn., June 26, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to seek damages for unpaid "off the clock," "edited-out," and "rounded-off," overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant had a plan, policy and practice of failing to record and/or "editing/shaving out" certain hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods during all times material to this action, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff performed job duties in excess of 40) hours per week within weekly pay periods during all times material without being paid the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rate of pay for such work, says the complaint. Plaintiff Issac Taylor was employed by and performed work for the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. The Defendant produces and provides medical related-devices to a world-wide market, and has production and other USA based facilities located in Andover, Massachusetts; Austin, Texas; Memphis, Tennessee; and Fort Worth, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Phone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com SMITTY'S SUPPLY: THF Products "Deceptive," Feldkamp et al. Allege ----------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE FELDKAMP, JOSH LESKO, NORMAN FOHNE, STEVE BURGDORF, ELLEN ALLICKS, ALLICKS EXCAVATING, and TWIN MILLS TIMBER & TIE, CO., INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC.; RURAL KING ADMINISTRATION, INC.; TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY; and CAM2 INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02177-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., June 22, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in deceptive labeling and marketing of their Super S Super Trac 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, Cam2 Promax 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil. The Defendants claim their products meet certain manufacturer specifications, particularly 303 standards, and provide certain anti-wear and protective benefits when, in fact, they knew, or should have known, that the tractor hydraulic fluid (THF) they are selling does not meet all listed manufacturer specifications and does not contain the anti-wear and protective properties. The use of 303 specifications by the Defendants on their THF products is deceptive as this designation is obsolete and is not suitable as ingredients for a THF. The Plaintiffs and Class members have been economically damaged by the Defendants' misrepresentation and negligent conduct with regard to the marketing and sale of the THF products. Allicks Excavating is an excavation and wrecking services provider located in Princeton, Illinois. Twin Mills Timber & Tie Co., Inc. is a timber products business located in West Frankfurt, Illinois. Smitty's Supply, Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of lubricants and related products, with its principal place of business located at 63399 Highway, 51 North, Roseland, Louisiana. Rural King Administration, Inc. is a farm supply store with principal place of business located at 4216 DeWitt Avenue, Mattoon, Illinois. Tractor Supply Company is an American retail chain of stores that offers products for home improvement, agriculture, lawn and garden maintenance, and livestock, equine and pet care, with its principal place of business in Brentwood, Tennessee. Cam2 International, L.L.C. is a manufacturer of lubricant products with its principal place of business in Roseland, Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jon D. Robinson, Esq. Zachary T. Anderson, Esq. BOLEN ROBINSON & ELLIS, LLP 202 S. Franklin St., 2nd Floor Decatur, IL 62523 Telephone: (217) 429-4296 Facsimile: (217) 329-0034 E-mail: jrobinson@brelaw.com zanderson@brelaw.com - and – Dirk Hubbard, Esq. Thomas V. Bender, Esq. HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC 2600 Grand, Ste. 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 421-0700 Facsimile: (816) 421-0899 E-mail: dhubbard@hab-law.com tbender@hab-law.com - and – Bryan T. White, Esq. Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq. William Carr, Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, L.L.C 19049 East Valley View Parkway Independence, MO 64055 Telephone: (816) 373-9080 Facsimile: (816) 373-9319 E-mail: ggraham@wagblaw.com bwhite@wagblaw.com STUBHUB INC: Faces Wood Suit Over Denial of Ticket Refunds ---------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STUBHUB, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04125 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2020) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff after Defendant retroactively changed their cash refund policy and began refusing consumers the ticket refunds long-promised by the FanProtect Guarantee amid COVID-19. StubHub is the "world's largest ticket marketplace" and for years prior to COVID-19 had made a "FanProtect Guarantee" that ticket purchasers like Plaintiff would receive full refunds for cancelled events. The COVID-19 cancelations and Defendants' trademarked FanProtect Guarantee should have meant that StubHub ticketholders like Plaintiff were promptly refunded their hard-earned money-money consumers now need more than ever in a time when many of StubHub's customers have lost their jobs and are suffering financial hardship. According to the complaint, Defendants began offering expiring coupons for future purchases on StubHub's website after changing their cash refund policy and began refusing consumers the refunds under the FanProtect Guarantee. Plaintiff and the Class of Defendants' customers she seeks to represent have been injured by Defendants' unlawful practices. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Class defined below seek an immediate public injunction requiring StubHub to honor its longstanding refund policy, damages, restitution, equitable relief for StubHub's consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. Stubhub, Inc. is a San Francisco-California-based event ticket company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Steven L. Wittels, Esq. J. Burkett McInturff, Esq. Tiasha Palikovic, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 18 Half Mile Road Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 319-9945 Facsimile: (914) 273-2563 E-mail: slw@wittelslaw.com jbm@wittelslaw.com tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com SUPER DIAMOND EAGLE: Aldaco Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Yadira Aldaco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Super Diamond Eagle, Inc. and Kalwaljit Singh, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00201, (E.D. Tex., April 20, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs, including expert witness fees and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Super Diamond Eagle is a company operating a convenience store at 215 W. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. in Tyler, Texas. Aldaco worked exclusively for Super Diamond Eagle as an Assistant Manager in the convenience store from approximately May 13, 2019 to February 15, 2020 in Tyler, Texas. Aldaco was paid an hourly rate for her work, however, she has not been paid overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 in a work week, says the complaint. [BN] 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 TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeals Order in ACTOS Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda America Holdings, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., and Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated January 28, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled In re ACTOS Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-cv-9244, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 20, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint in the case captioned IN RE ACTOS END-PAYOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION in light of a Second Circuit's decision. At issue in this case is whether Defendants Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda America Holdings, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., and Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., are liable to the Plaintiffs, the indirect purchasers of Takeda's diabetes medication called ACTOS, for unlawfully inflating that drug's prices in violation of state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws. The Plaintiffs are indirect purchasers of ACTOS, who sued Takeda and several generic manufacturers under state antitrust laws. They claimed, among other things, that Takeda had unlawfully reaped monopoly profits by delaying the generics' entry into the market. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the basis that the Plaintiffs had failed to adequately allege that Takeda's actions caused the Plaintiffs' antitrust injury. The appellate case is captioned as In re ACTOS Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 20-1994, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP 1625 North Commerce Parkway Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 903-3170 E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com Defendants-Appellants Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda America Holdings, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., and Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. are represented by: Steven A. Reed, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5603 E-mail: steven.reed@morganlewis.com TELIGENT INC: Econazole Antitrust Litigation Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Teligent, 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 antitrust litigation related to the pricing of econazole nitrate pharmaceutical products. To date, thirteen putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo New York Inc., regarding the pricing of generic pharmaceuticals, including econazole nitrate. The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased, paid and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic pharmaceuticals from as early as July 1, 2009 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease. The class plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges during the alleged period of conspiracy, and certain of the class plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief against the defendants. The actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter. On October 16, 2018 the court dismissed the class plaintiffs' claims against the Company with leave to replead. On December 21, 2018 the class plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which the Company moved to dismiss on February 21, 2019. This motion remains pending. On December 19, 2019 certain class plaintiffs filed a further complaint that included additional claims against the Company based on the Company's sales of fluocinolone acetonide. A motion to dismiss this complaint has not yet been filed. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in Buena, New Jersey. TELIGENT INC: Okla. Police Pension Fund & Retirement Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Teligent, 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 a class action suit initiated by Oklahoma Police Pension Fund and Retirement System. On April 15, 2019 a federal class action was filed the Oklahoma Police Pension Fund and Retirement System against the Company and certain individual defendants in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded Teligent, Inc. securities from March 7, 2017 through November 6, 2017. The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies in violation of U.S. securities laws. The plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages. Due to the early stage of these cases, the Company is unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. Teligent said, "The Company believes these cases are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against these claims." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells generic topical, branded generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as IGI Laboratories, Inc. and changed its name to Teligent, Inc. in October 2015. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in Buena, New Jersey. TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Garity Sues over Proposed Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ EDWARD GARITY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; L. PATRICK GAGE; LARRY EDWARDS; GAREN BOHLIN; STEVEN BOYD; JEFFREY A. CHODAKEWITZ; JOHN G. FREUND; GERRI HENWOOD; GUY MACDONALD; KEITH MAHER; NANCY J. WYSENSKI; MELINTA THERAPEUTICS, INC.; and TORONTO TRANSACTIO CORP., Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-00827-UNA (D. Del., June 17, 2020) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The class action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 4, 2020 (the "Proposed Transaction"), pursuant to which Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. will be acquired by Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. and Toronto Transaction Corp. On June 4, 2020, Tetraphase's Board of Directors (the "Board" or "Individual Defendants") caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Melinta. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer (the "Tender Offer") to purchase all of Tetraphase's outstanding common stock for $1.79 per share in cash and one contingent value right ("CVR"). The Tender Offer is set to expire on July 11, 2020. On June 12, 2020, Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. The Solicitation Statement fails to disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate (a) EBIT and (b) Unlevered Free Cash Flow; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. biopharmaceutical products. The Company offers antibiotics to treat multi-drug resistant bacterial infections. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals serves patients in the United States. [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 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Marshall P. Dees HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: mdees@holzerlaw.com TRADER JOE'S: Kong Sues Over Breaches of Plan Duties Under ERISA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard A. Kong, Robert A. Cruzalegui, Mathew W. Heiden, and Cashay L. Clayborn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 2:20-cv-05790 (C.D. Cal., June 29, 2020), is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Company's 401(k) plan's fiduciaries, which include the Company, the Board of Directors and its members during the Class Period, and the Investment Committee and its members during the proposed class period for breaches of their fiduciary duties. To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. These twin fiduciary duties are "the highest known to the law." Fiduciaries must act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries," with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in managing a plan of similar scope. The Plan has at all times during the Class Period maintained over $1.2 billion in assets (including having over $1.7 billion in assets in 2018), qualifying it as a large plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest plans in the United States. These assets are entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. As a large plan, the Plan had substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that were charged against participants' investments. The Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period (June 29, 2014 through the date of judgment) the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. To make matters worse, the Defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, according to the complaint. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of the ERISA, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan, investing in the options offered by the Plan. Trader Joe's is the Plan sponsor, who is a privately owned American chain of grocery stores established in 1967 by its founder Joe Coulombe.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Germain, Esq. ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP 16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436-2152 Phone: (818) 788-0877 Facsimile: (818) 788-0885 Email: germain@lalawyer.com - and - Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Phone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 Email: donr@capozziadler.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Phone: (610) 890-0200 Fax (717) 233-4103 Email: markg@capozziadler.com TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Riverwalk Sues Over Failure to Honor Duties --------------------------------------------------------------- The Riverwalk Seafood Grille, Inc., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:20-cv-03768 (N.D. Ill., June 26, 2020), is brought against Traveler's for its failure to honor its obligations under commercial business owners insurance policies issued to the Plaintiff, which provide coverage for losses incurred due to a "necessary suspension" of their operations, including when their businesses are forced to close due to a government order, the Civil Authority Coverage. The Plaintiff is the owner and operator of business in Kane County, Illinois, which has been forced by recent orders issued by the State of Illinois, to cease operations--through no fault of its own--as part of the State's efforts to slow the spread of the COVID-19 global pandemic. To protect their businesses from situations like these, which threaten their livelihoods based on factors wholly outside of their control, the Plaintiff and proposed class members obtained business interruption insurance from Traveler's. In blatant breach of its insurance obligations that it voluntarily undertook in exchange for the Plaintiff's premium payments, Traveler's has denied the Plaintiff's claims arising from the State-ordered interruption of business, according to the complaint. On March 20, 2020, Governor Jay Pritzker ordered all "non-essential businesses" to close. The March 15 and March 20 orders are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Closure Orders." As a result of the Closure Orders, the Plaintiff has been forced to halt ordinary operations, resulting in substantial lost revenues. But despite Traveler's express promise in its policies to cover the Plaintiff's business interruption losses when the government forces them to close, Traveler's has issued blanket denials to Plaintiff for any losses related to the Closure Orders, the Plaintiff says. Traveler's continually asserts that the Plaintiff's losses are not covered, based on the assertion that the "actual or alleged presence of the coronavirus," which led to the Closure Orders that prohibited the Plaintiff from operating its businesses, does not constitute "direct physical loss." But Traveler's conclusory statement that the actual or alleged presence of a substance like COVID-19 does not result in property damage is contrary to the law in Illinois, the Plaintiff contends. Thus, Traveler's wholesale, cursory coverage denials are arbitrary and unreasonable, and inconsistent with the facts and plain language of the policies it issued, according to the complaint. These denials appear to be driven by Traveler's desire to preempt its own financial exposure to the economic fallout resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, rather than to initiate, as Traveler's is obligated to do, a full and fair investigation of the claims and a careful review of the policies they sold to the Plaintiff in exchange for valuable premiums. The Plaintiff hosts weddings, corporate events, and other special events serving food and beverages. Traveler's is an insurance company organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut, with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert M. Foote, Esq. Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. Matthew J. Herman, Esq. FOOTE, MEILKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC 10 West State Street, Suite 200 Geneva, IL 60134 Phone: (630) 232-7450 Email: rmf@fmcolaw.com kcc@fmcolaw.com mjh@fmcolaw.com TRUIST FINANCIAL: Steward Suit Over PPP Fees Moved to M.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN L. STEWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A. v. TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION and TRUIST BANK, Case No. 2020CA5359O (Filed May 21, 2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court in and for Orange County to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on June 18, 2020. The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:20-cv-01083-PGB-GJK to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiff claims that it acted as borrower's agent that assisted small businesses in applying for federally-backed Paycheck Protection Program loans offered by Truist under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. The Plaintiff asserts that Truist owes the Plaintiff portions of the lender fees Truist allegedly received under the CARES Act and its implementing regulations. Truist is an American bank holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Phillips, Esq. Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 Facsimile: (888) 974-2175 E-mail: jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com ed@normandpllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Emily Y. Rottmann, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 798-3200 Facsimile: (904) 798-3207 E-mail: erottmann@mcguirewoods.com UBER TECH: Court Denies Bid for Injunctive Relief in Capriole Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JOHN CAPRIOLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and DARA KHOSROWSHAHI, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11941-IT (D. Mass.), Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff Capriole brings claims, on his own behalf and on behalf of drivers who have worked in Massachusetts for Defendant Uber, based on Uber's alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors. The Plaintiff filed the putative class action, on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated Uber drivers in Massachusetts, under the Massachusetts Wage Act, and the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, alleging misclassification and non-payment of minimum wage and overtime. Capriole also filed the pending motion, asking the court to immediately enjoin Uber from misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees and to require that Uber reclassify its drivers as employees and comply with Massachusetts wage laws. The Defendants responded with a Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings and a Motion to Transfer Venu. After briefing was complete on the pending motions, Capriole amended his complaint to add a claim alleging violations of the Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law. Judge Talwani begins with the Motion for Injunctive Relief, rather than the Motion to Compel Arbitration, for two reasons. First, if the Defendants are correct that arbitration is required, the Court still retains the power to grant interim relief, if otherwise justified, for the interval needed to resort to the arbitrator. Second, the Plaintiff has argued that the "public injunction" he seeks precludes a referral to arbitration. The Plaintiff argues that he meets the irreparable injury prong based on the alleged injury faced by the public writ large throughout Massachusetts on account of Uber's misclassification of workers. He urges the Court to "follow" a California Supreme Court decision, McGill v. Citibank, N.A. In McGill, the court pointed to two earlier decisions where it had found that the statutory remedies available for three consumer protection statutes include public injunctive relief. The court held that if public injunctive relief is available, a plaintiff cannot waive the statutory right to seek such relief in court by signing an arbitration agreement. The Plaintiff argues that there is no difference between Massachusetts law and California law on the subject of public injunctions. But the Plaintiff's argument skips a step. The Judge holds that even assuming that Massachusetts courts would follow McGill in rejecting arbitration agreements where a statutory scheme provides for public injunctive relief, she must determine first whether "public injunctive relief" is available to the Plaintiff based on the specific statutory claims asserted. Unlike the consumer protection statutes at issue in McGill, the Massachusetts Wage Act includes no provisions for public injunctive relief. Instead, the statutory scheme allows a plaintiff to "institute and prosecute in his own name and on his own behalf, or for himself and for others similarly situated, a civil action for injunctive relief, for any damages incurred, and for any lost wages and other benefits. The statute explicitly contemplates class-wide relief but includes no provisions that allow for injunction for the public benefit. As the McGill court noted, relief that has the primary purpose or effect of redressing or preventing injury to an individual plaintiff -- or to a group of individuals similarly situated to the plaintiff -- does not constitute public injunctive relief. Finally, the Plaintiff asks the court to certify a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to determine whether Massachusetts law will follow the rule in McGill such that the right to claims for public injunctive relief cannot be thwarted through the use of an arbitration clause. But again, the request is misplaced. The threshold issue is not whether a statutory scheme allowing plaintiffs to sue for public injunctive relief may be thwarted by arbitration provisions, but whether the statutory scheme at issue here allows for a public injunction. Because the Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing of immediate threat of irreparable harm, the Judge need not reach the other factors in the preliminary injunction analysis. Accordingly, Judge Talwani denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 20, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/CvYfOl from Leagle.com. John Capriole, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Adelaide H. Pagano -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Anne R. Kramer -- akramer@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. Uber Technologies, Inc. & Dara Kosrowshahi, Defendants, represented by Brandon Stoker -- bstoker@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Heather Richardson -- hrichardson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua S. Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher & Theane Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice. UNDER ARMOUR: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case styled, In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, a trial court has granted the lead plaintiff's Rule 62.1 motion for relief from the final judgment and has provided the lead plaintiff with the opportunity to file a third amended complaint if the Fourth Circuit remands for that purpose, according to Under Armour, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the "District Court") were consolidated under the caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB (the "Consolidated Action"). On August 4, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action, North East Scotland Pension Fund, joined by named plaintiff Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against the Company, the Company's then-Chief Executive Officer, Kevin Plank, and former Chief Financial Officers Lawrence Molloy and Brad Dickerson. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act against the officers named in the Amended Complaint, claiming that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products. The class period identified in the Amended Complaint is September 16, 2015 through January 30, 2017. The Amended Complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), in connection with the Company's public offering of senior unsecured notes in June 2016. The Securities Act claims are asserted against the Company, the Mr. Plank, Mr. Molloy, the Company's directors who signed the registration statement pursuant to which the offering was made and the underwriters that participated in the offering. The Amended Complaint alleges that the offering materials utilized in connection with the offering contained false and/or misleading statements and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products. On November 9, 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Securities Act claims with prejudice and the Exchange Act claims without prejudice. The lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 16, 2018, asserting claims under the Exchange Act and naming the Company and Mr. Plank as the remaining defendants. The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on January 17, 2019. On August 19, 2019, the District Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. In September 2019, plaintiffs filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit challenging the decisions by the District Court on September 19, 2018 and August 19, 2019 (the "Appeal"). The Appeal was fully briefed as of January 16, 2020. On November 18, 2019, before briefing on the Appeal was complete, the lead plaintiff filed in the District Court a motion for an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 (the "Rule 62.1 Motion") seeking relief from the final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Rule 62.1 Motion alleged that purported newly discovered evidence entitled the lead plaintiff to relief from the District Court's final judgment. On January 22, 2020, the District Court granted the Rule 62.1 motion and indicated that it would grant a motion for relief from the final judgment and provide the lead plaintiff with the opportunity to file a third amended complaint if the Fourth Circuit remands for that purpose. The District Court further stated that it would, upon remand, consolidate the matter with Patel v. Under Armour, Inc. and Waronker v. Under Armour Inc., and appoint the lead plaintiff of In re Under Armour Securities Litigation as the lead plaintiff over the consolidated cases. Under Armour said, "The Company continues to believe that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of this matter." Under Armour, Inc. is an American company that manufactures footwear, sports, and casual apparel. UNITED STATES: Hall Appeals N.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Robin Hall and Steven Summers filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Robin Hall, et al. v. USDA, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03454-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 27, 2020, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendants unlawfully denied the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated essential emergency assistance, including the federal government's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP" formerly known as the Food Stamp program) that addresses rising food insecurity and hunger due to the COVID-19 global pandemic. The United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") has implemented an interpretation of the Act that departs from the statute's directive and prevents state SNAP administrators, including the California Department of Social Services, from providing emergency food benefits to households that are receiving the maximum SNAP monthly benefit. These are the households with the lowest incomes, fewest resources, and greatest likelihood of hunger. USDA is denying emergency food assistance to those who need it the most in the midst of this unparalleled economic and health catastrophe. The appellate case is captioned as Robin Hall, et al. v. USDA, et al., Case No. 20-16232, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBIN HALL and STEVEN SUMMERS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Antionette Dozier, Esq. Alexander Baughan Prieto, Esq. Richard A. Rothschild, Esq. WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY 3701 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 235-2629 E-mail: adozier@wclp.org aprieto@wclp.org rrothschild@wclp.org - and - Jocelyn Dion Larkin, Esq. THE IMPACT FUND 2080 Addison Street, Suite 5 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 845-3473 E-mail: jlarkin@impactfund.org - and - David Sidney Shaffer Nahmias, Esq. Lindsay Nako, Esq. THE IMPACT FUND 125 University Avenue, Suite 102 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 845-3473 E-mail: dnahmias@impactfund.org lnako@impactfund.org Defendants-Appellees UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE and GEORGE PERDUE, In his official capacity as United States Secretary of Agriculture, are represented by: Rachael Westmoreland, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 883 Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 514-1280 E-mail: rachael.westmoreland@usdoj.gov UNITI GROUP: Arkansas Court Consolidates 3 Putative Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas has consolidated three separate putative class actions under the caption In re Uniti Group Inc. Securities Litigation, according to Uniti Group Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. Ibrahim E. Safadi, Phil Queder and Michael Avery filed separate putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against the Company and certain of the Company's officers on October 25, 2019, December 6, 2019, and December 23, 2019, respectively, alleging violations of the federal securities laws (the "Shareholder Actions"). The Shareholder Actions seek to represent investors who acquired the Company's securities between April 20, 2015 and February 15, 2019 (in the case of the Safadi and Queder actions) and April 20, 2015 and June 24, 2019 (in the case of the Avery action). The Shareholder Actions assert violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that the Company made materially false and misleading statements by allegedly failing to disclose that the Spin-Off and entry into the Master Lease violated certain debt covenants of Windstream. The Shareholder Actions seek class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other relief. On March 12, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas consolidated the Shareholder Actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the consolidated cases under the caption In re Uniti Group Inc. Securities Litigation. The Company said, "We intend to defend this matter vigorously, and, because it is still in its preliminary stages, we have not yet determined what effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on our financial position or results of operations. As of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss and therefore have not recorded any liabilities associated with these claims in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet." Uniti Group Inc. operates as a real estate investment trust. The Company provides wireless infrastructure solutions for communications industry. Uniti Group serves customers in the United States and Latin America. The company is based in Little Rock, Arkansas. US OIL FUND: Facing Lucas Putative Class Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------- United States Oil Fund, LP said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company is a defendant in a purported stockholder class action suit initiated by Robert Lucas. United States Oil Fund was named as a defendant in a purported stockholder class action on June 19, 2020 by Robert Lucas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against defendants USO, United States Commodity Funds LLC, John P. Love and Stuart P. Crumbaugh. The stockholder class action is pending in the U.S. District of Southern District of New York as Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. The putative class action complaint alleges that beginning in March 2020, in connection with USO's registration and issuance of additional USO shares, defendants failed to disclose to investors certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. Plaintiff alleges that defendants possessed inside knowledge about the consequences of these converging adverse events on USO and did not sufficiently acknowledge them until late April and May 2020, after USO suffered losses and was allegedly forced to abandon its investment strategy. The complaint seeks to certify a class and award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial. The defendants believe the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously contest such claims. United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland, California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. (the "NYSE Arca"). It operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"), which grants full management control to its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF"). UXIN LIMITED: Appeal in New York Securities Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Uxin Limited's appeal related to the Supreme Court of the State of New York's March 2020 decision narrowing the claims in the consolidated case styled, In re Uxin Limited Securities Litigation, Index No. 650427/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.), remains pending in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the First Department. The case consolidated six complaints filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in January 2019. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in August 5, 2019. The case was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of alleged misstatements and omissions in certain disclosure documents in connection with the Company's initial public offering in June 2018. On March 9, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. On March 12, 2020, the Company filed a notice of appeal in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the First Department. Uxin Limited, an investment holding company, operates a used car e-commerce platform in China. Uxin Limited was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Beijing, China. UXIN LTD: Machniewicz Suit Proceeds to Mediation ------------------------------------------------ Uxin Limited awaits the Court's decision on a motion to dismiss the putative securities class action styled, Machniewicz v. Uxin Limited et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-00822 (E.D.N.Y.), according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 11, 2019, and was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of alleged misstatements and omissions in certain disclosure documents in connection with the Company's initial public offering in June 2018. The Company said that briefing on a motion to dismiss was completed on April 24, 2020, and a decision is pending. * * * In a May 6, 2020 Order, Judge Margo K. Brodie granted the application to stay the case on consent of the parties while they attempt to mediate the issues. Consistent with this request, the Court marked the pending motion to dismiss off the motion calendar. If the parties are unable to resolve the issues through mediation, either side can move the Court to restore the motion to the motions calendar. Uxin Limited, an investment holding company, operates an used car e-commerce platform in China. Uxin Limited was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Beijing, China. VECTOR GROUP: Parsons Class Action Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------- The stay remains in effect in the purported class action styled, Parsons v. AC & S Inc., according to Vector Group Ltd.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. In February 1998, the purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have claims arising from their exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The operative complaint seeks to recover unspecified compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the putative class. The case is stayed as a result of the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants. Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and brokerage. VECTOR GROUP: Young Personal Injury Class Suit Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- The purported personal injury class action entitled, Young v. American Tobacco Co., is still stayed, according to Vector Group Ltd.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class certification hearing has been held. A stay order entered on March 16, 2016 stays the case pending completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and brokerage. VERDE ENERGY: Richardson Settlement Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Wendy Beetlestone has granted final approval to the settlement reached by the parties in the case, Richardson et al v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-06325 (E.D. Pa, Nov 25, 2015). In a May 19 final order, Judge Beetlestone certified the case as a class action pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The Settlement Class consists of: "all individuals in the United States who received a call made by or on behalf of Verde Energy USA, Inc. to the individual's cellular or landline telephone, through the use of a pre-recorded or artificial voice, from October 16, 2013 to February 14, 2019." The Court appointed, solely for purposes of the Settlement, Plaintiffs Brian Richardson, Michelle Hunt, Jacqueline Bowser, Kris Villiger and Donna Schley to serve as the Class Representatives. The Court appointed, solely for purposes of the Settlement: -- Shanon J. Carson and Lane L. Vines of Berger Montague PC, -- W. Craft Hughes and Jarrett L. Ellzey of Hughes Ellzey, LLP, -- Joshua D. Arisohn of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and -- Ari H. Marcus of Marcus & Zelman, LLC to serve as Class Counsel. Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Richardson et. al. v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") or a prerecorded voice to the purported class members' cellular phones without prior express consent and by continuing to make such calls after receiving requests for the calls to cease. Following discovery and dispositive motions, the Verde Companies received a favorable ruling on summary judgment with the court agreeing with the Verde Companies that the call system used in this case was not an ATDS as defined by the TCPA. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their petition eliminating their ATDS claim and including a class based on failure to comply with the National Do Not Call registry. As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter. The parties reached a settlement in this matter. On January 17, 2020, the court approved the Parties' preliminary settlement and settlement claims' administration has commenced. Final court approval was initially scheduled for May 27, 2020. Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an independent retail energy services company in the United States. It operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. Verde Energy is represented by: Albert G. Bixler, Esq. Kevin P. Allen, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC Tel: 215-851-8412 412-566-6866 E-mail: abixler@eckertseamans.com kpallen@eckertseamans.com VIVID SEATS: Donets Sues over Biometric Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL DONETS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIVID SEATS LLC, Defendant, Case: 1:20-cv-03551 (N.D. Ill., June 17, 2020) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Prior to taking the Plaintiff's biometric, the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff in writing that his biometrics were being collected, stored, used, or disseminated, or publish any policy specifically about the collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of biometrics. Vivid Seats LLC operates an independent secondary ticket marketplace. The Company sells tickets for live sports, concerts, and theater events. Vivid Seats conducts business in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rusty A. Payton PAYTON LEGAL GROUP 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (773) 682-5210 E-mail: info@payton.legal - and - Nick Wooten, Esq. NICK WOOTEN, LLC 5125 Burnt Pine Drive Conway, AK 72034 Telephone: (833) 937-6389 E-mail: nick@nickwooten.com - and - Arthur C. Czaja, Esq. LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL 7521 N. Milwaukee Ave. Niles, IL 60714 Telephone: (847) 647-2106 E-mail: arthur@czajalawoffices.com W.B. MASON: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Sosa Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- YONY SOSA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. W.B. MASON CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04828 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2020) is a civil rights action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people resulting to denial of full and equal access to its website and denial of its products and services offered thereby which is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. Plaintiff is, however, a proficient JAWS screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited the Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring in June, 2020, in an attempt to purchase a product from the Defendant, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to learn more information about the Website's PPE such as masks, hand sanitizers, cleaning supplies and other products available online for purchase, as well as information relating to pricing, ordering merchandise, shipping, terms and conditions and return and privacy policies. According to the complaint, Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers for blind or visually-impaired persons while attempting to navigate the Website These access barriers on Defendant's Website have deterred Plaintiff from visiting Defendant's Website, and enjoying it equal to sighted individuals because Plaintiff was unable to use and enjoy the Website in the same manner as sighted individuals do, preventing Plaintiff from using the Website to purchase items and to view the items. Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights. W.B. Mason Co., Inc. operates the W.B. Mason online retail store as well as the W.B. Mason website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal danalgottlieb@aol.com WALMART INC: Williams Says Infant Milk Powder Label "Misleading" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, - against - Walmart Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02768-RRM-SJB (E.D.N.Y., June 22, 2020) alleges that Defendant's "Infant Formula with Iron - Milk-based powder" for the Toddler Beginnings Product (9 Months & Older) is deceptive and misleading because it is "confusingly similar to the name of" the Infant Product intended for infants, between zero and twelve months. According to the complaint, though the Products are targeted towards different age ranges with different nutritional needs, they share the same labeling format and similar statements. The similar labeling of the Toddler Beginnings Product and Infant Product causes consumers including the Plaintiff to make incorrect nutritional decisions. Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading branding and packaging of the Toddler Beginnings Product has enabled defendant to sell more of the Product and at higher prices per unit, than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. Further, Defendant's fraudulent intent is evinced by its failure to accurately identify the Product on the front label by describing it as "Infant Formula – Milk-Powder with Iron" even though it was intended for consumption by children who did not fit the definition of infants and had different nutritional needs. Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd Ste 311 Great Neck, NY 11021-5101 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Herrington to Recover $1.1MM in Counsel Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ Waterstone Financial, 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 case styled, Herrington et al. v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, the arbitrator has issued an award that would allow Plaintiff Pamela Herrington to recover US$1.1 million in attorney fees and costs. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation was a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin and subsequently compelled to arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. The plaintiff class alleged that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation violated certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and failed to pay loan officers consistent with their employment agreements. On July 5, 2017, the arbitrator issued a Final Award finding Waterstone Mortgage Corporation liable for unpaid minimum wages, overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated damages under the FLSA. On December 8, 2017, the District Court confirmed the award in large part, and entered a judgment against Waterstone in the amount of US$7,267,919 in damages to Claimants, US$3,298,851 in attorney fees and costs, and a US$20,000 incentive fee to Herrington. The judgment was appealed by Waterstone to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where oral argument was held on May 29, 2018. On October 22, 2018, the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling vacating the District Court's order enforcing the arbitration award. It found that Herrington had an enforceable class action waiver in her arbitration agreement, and remanded the case to the District Court. On April 25, 2019, the District Court held that Plaintiff's claims must be resolved through single-plaintiff arbitration. As a result, it vacated the July 5, 2017 arbitration award in its entirety, and issued a revised judgement in Waterstone's favor. In May 2019, Herrington re-initiated her individual arbitration. Over Waterstone's objection, the arbitrator considered evidence from the prior vacated proceeding. A hearing was held in Herrington's individual arbitration in November 2019, and Herrington sought over US$55,000 in damages on her individual claim, plus punitive damages, attorney fees and costs. The arbitrator issued a written award on February 18, 2020 and in which he found Waterstone liable for damages. Although he found Herrington was exempt under the outside sales exemption, he relied on evidence from the prior proceeding in finding Waterstone had waived and was estopped from asserting the exemption. He thus found Waterstone was liable for damages, based on an assumed workweek of 50 hours and US$100 in unreimbursed expenses per workweek. The arbitrator has awarded Herrington US$14,952 in damages on her claims. Herrington has since sought US$4.9 million in fees and costs on her award, which includes fees dating back to 2011 and the vacated proceeding. On May 6, 2020, the arbitrator issued an award that would allow Herrington to recover US$1.1 million in attorney fees and costs. Waterstone still retains the right to challenge the award in Court, through a motion to vacate or modify the award. Even if the award is confirmed and a judgment is entered, it retains its appellate rights to challenge the award before the Seventh Circuit. Waterstone continues to assess its avenues for appeal, including challenging the arbitrator's reliance on prior findings from a vacated proceeding and the arbitrator's fee award. However, given the details of these recent developments, Waterstone does believe that it has met the criteria with respect to recognizing a loss contingency under relevant accounting principles. As such, the Company recorded a loss reserve with respect to this matter for approximately US$1.1 million during the three months ended March 31, 2020. Waterstone is actively pursuing claims against its former attorneys related to their prior representation of Waterstone in the Herrington v. Waterstone arbitration and related matters. Waterstone Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for WaterStone Bank SSB that provides various financial services to customers in southeastern Wisconsin, the United States. It operates through two segments, Community Banking and Mortgage Banking. The company was formerly known as Wauwatosa Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Waterstone Financial, Inc. in August 2008. Waterstone Financial, Inc. was founded in 1921 and is based in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. WELLS FARGO: T.C. Koziara Files Class Suit in M.D. North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al. The case is styled as T.C. Koziara, PLLC, Fahmia, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00588-UA-LPA (M.D.N.C., June 26, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Wells Fargo & Company is an United States multinational financial services company. Wells Fargo is the world's fourth-largest bank by market capitalization and the fourth largest bank in the U.S. by total assets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel C. Lyon, Esq. ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, PLLC 300 E. Kingston Avenue, Suite 200 Charlotte, NC 28203 Phone: (704) 707-3705 Email: dlyon@emplawfirm.com WEST CREEK: Smart Files Consumer Credit Suit in M.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against WEST CREEK FINANCIAL INC. The case is styled as Cornelius Smart, An individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WEST CREEK FINANCIAL INC., A Virginia Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-00250-MTT (M.D. Ga., June 26, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Truth in Lending. West Creek is a point of sale financing provider for retailers around the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Addleton, Esq. PO Box 416 Macon, GA 31202 Phone: (404) 797-7166 - and - Robert William Murphy, Esq. 1212 SE 2nd Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 763-8660 Fax: (954) 763-8607 Email: rphyu@aol.com XPERI CORP: Facing Suits Over TiVo Merger ----------------------------------------- Xperi Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company is facing two putative class action suits related to its merger with TiVo Corporation and XRAY-TWOLF HoldCo Corporation. On December 18, 2019, Xperi Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Xperi"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of December 18, 2019, as amended on January 31, 2020 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Xperi, TiVo Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("TiVo"), XRAY-TWOLF HoldCo Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("HoldCo"), XRAY Merger Sub Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and TWOLF Merger Sub Corporation, a Delaware corporation. A definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by HoldCo on April 22, 2020, in connection with, among other things, the Merger Agreement. On March 3, 2020, a lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder of Xperi in connection with the proposed merger between TiVo and Xperi. The lawsuit was brought as a putative class action and is captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v. TiVo Corporation, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00327 (D. Del. filed Mar. 3, 2020). The complaint names as defendants Xperi, XRAY-TWOLF HoldCo Corporation, XRAY Merger Sub Corporation, TWOLF Merger Sub Corporation, TiVo, and the TiVo Board members. The complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the individual defendants and TiVo, and alleges a claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants and Xperi, because the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on February 18, 2020 purportedly omitted or misrepresented material information regarding the proposed merger between TiVo and Xperi. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, rescission or rescissory damages, and an award of plaintiffs' costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses. The complaint also seeks dissemination of a registration statement that does not contain any untrue or misleading statements of material fact and a declaration that defendants violated the Exchange Act. On May 15, 2020, a lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder of Xperi in connection with the proposed merger between TiVo and Xperi. The lawsuit was brought as a putative class action and is captioned Local 464A United Food and Commercial Workers Union Pension Fund v. Darcy Antonellis, et al., No. 2020-0376-JRS (Del. Ch. filed May 15, 2020). The complaint names as defendants the Xperi Board members. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty against the Xperi Board members for failing to properly consider and disclose the non-binding proposal from Metis Ventures LLC, violating their continuing fiduciary duty to evaluate the TiVo merger in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, and failing to adequately disclose material facts germane to the vote on the proposed merger between TiVo and Xperi. The complaint seeks a judgment declaring that the Xperi Board members breached their fiduciary duties, awarding equitable relief that deprives the Xperi Board members of all benefits they would realize as a result of the merger between TiVo and Xperi, awarding class damages, awarding plaintiff's attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs, and awarding any further relief the court deems just and proper. Xperi believes these complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. While Xperi believes that the disclosures set forth in the joint proxy statement/prospectus comply fully with all applicable law and denies the allegations in the pending actions described above, in order to moot plaintiffs' disclosure claims, avoid nuisance and possible expense and business delays, and provide additional information to its stockholders, Xperi has determined voluntarily to supplement certain disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus related to plaintiffs' claims with the supplemental disclosures set forth below (the "Supplemental Disclosures"). Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal merit, necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, Xperi specifically denies all allegations in the various litigation matters that any additional disclosure was or is required or material. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/2Aqpnqt. Xperi Corporation is a San Jose, California-based firm that licenses technology and intellectual property in areas such as mobile computing, communications, memory and data storage, and three-dimensional integrated circuit technologies, among others. The company is based in San Jose, California. YANFENG US: Breached Fiduciary Duties to 401(k)Plan, Dover Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JASON DOVER and ERIC SIMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YANFENG US AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR SYSTEMS, I LLC, SHELLY IACOBELLI, the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF YANFENG US AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR SYSTEMS, I LLC, the YANFENG GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR SYSTEMS COMPANY LTD. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS POLICY COMMITTEE, the YANFENG GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR SYSTEMS COMPANY LTD., INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-40, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-11643-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 22, 2020), arises from the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries pursuant to Sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Yanfeng Automotive Interior Systems Savings and Investment 401(k) Plan, allege that the Defendants failed to perform the fiduciary duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and other Plan participants by: (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent in terms of cost; (2) failing to select the lowest cost share class for many of the funds within the Plan, despite their lower fees; (3) selecting and retaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories; and (4) failing to ensure the Plan's total recordkeeping and other administrative expenses were reasonable and not excessive. The Board Defendants also failed to monitor and evaluate the performance of the Committee Defendants or have a system in place for doing so and also failed to monitor the processes by which Plan investments were evaluated. As a consequence of these breaches of duty, the Plan suffered millions of dollars of losses. Had the Defendants complied with their fiduciary obligations, the Plan would not have suffered these losses, and Plan participants, including the Plaintiffs, would have had more money available to them for their retirement. Yanfeng US Automotive Interior Systems I LLC is a provider of automotive interior solutions with a principal place of business located at 41319 West 12 Mile Road, Novi, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Darryl Bressack, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK 38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 Facsimile: (248) 971-2600 E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com dbressack@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and – Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com medelson@edelson-law.com ZAPPOS IP: Tatum-Rios Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zappos IP LLC. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Zappos IP LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04943 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2020). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zappos.com, Inc., sells apparel and footwear online. The Company offers sneakers, boots, sandals, slippers, shirts, trousers, skirts, jackets, coats, swimsuits, bags, belts, gloves, scarves, ties, and socks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com ZIMMER BIOMET: $50-Mil. Accord in Shah Case Wins Initial Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00815 (N.D. Ind.), Judge Philip P. Simon entered an Opinion and Order dated May 21, 2020: -- denying as moot the Motion to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel by Plaintiffs Matt Brierley, Steven Castillo, Eric Levy, Rajesh M Shah, Local 1500 UFCW, except that Plaintiff's Motion to Be Appointed Class Counsel is granted; -- appointing Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as class counsel for the Settlement Class; -- granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for: (I) Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement; (II) Certified of the Settlement Class; and (III) Approval of Notice of the Settlement. Judge Simon certified a Settlement Class consisting of all persons or entities who, between June 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired ZBH Common Stock and/or ZBH Call Options, and/or wrote ZBH Put Options, and were damaged thereby. Included in the Settlement Class are all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired ZBH common stock pursuant to and/or traceable to ZBH's public offerings on or around June 13, 2016 and/or ZBH's public offering on or around August 9, 2016 and were damaged thereby. The Defendants have offered up a Settlement Fund of $50 million to pay class members' claims on a pro rata basis, pay the costs of administering the Settlement Fund, and to compensate Plaintiffs' counsel for their work. A Final Fairness Hearing is September 3, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. CDT. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, 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 on December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming the Company, one of the Company's officers and two of the Company's now former officers as defendants. On June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those previously named, current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors, one additional officer, and the underwriters in connection with secondary offerings of the Company's common stock by certain selling stockholders in 2016. On October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriters without prejudice. On October 8, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those current and former officers and Board members previously named, certain former stockholders of ours who sold shares of the Company's common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016. The Company and its current and former officers and Board members named as defendants are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Zimmer Biomet Defendant group". The former stockholders of ours who sold shares of the Company's common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016 are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Private Equity Fund Defendant group". The second amended complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between June 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The second amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions about the Company's compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations and the Company's ability to continue to accelerate the Company's organic revenue growth rate in the second half of 2016. The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on December 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to the motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018 and the defendants filed their respective reply briefs on May 18, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the court denied the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The court granted the Private Equity Fund Defendant group's motion to dismiss, without prejudice. On October 9, 2018, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed a motion (i) to amend the court's order on the motion to certify two issues for interlocutory appeal, and (ii) to stay proceedings pending appeal. On February 21, 2019, that motion was denied. On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On June 20, 2019, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed its response. The plaintiffs' motion remained pending as of March 31, 2020. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief. The Company said, "Although we believe this lawsuit is without merit, during a mediation in December 2019, plaintiffs and defendants, along with Zimmer Biomet's insurers, reached a settlement in principle to resolve the claims. We have made an accrual for the proposed settlement that we expect to be fully covered by our insurers." Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, and markets musculoskeletal healthcare products and solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. It operates through four segments: Spine, less Asia Pacific; Office Based Technologies; Craniomaxillofacial and Thoracic; and Dental. The company was formerly known as Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. in June 2015. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana. ZYNERBA PHARMACEUTICALS: Wants E.D. Pa. Securities Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the individual defendants have sought the Court's ruling to dismiss, with prejudice, a putative class action suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 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. On October 23, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its current officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with an amended complaint filed on March 9, 2020. This action was purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of Zynerba investors who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between March 11, 2019 and September 17, 2019. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made certain material misstatements and omissions relating to product candidate Zygel ("ZYN002") in alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, plaintiff claims that Defendants made false statements or failed to disclose that: (i) Zygel was proving unsafe and not well-tolerated in the BELIEVE 1 clinical trial; (ii) that the foregoing created a foreseeable, heightened risk that Zynerba would fail to secure the necessary regulatory approvals for commercializing Zygel for the treatment of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies in children and adolescents, and (iii) as a result the Company's public statements and public filings were materially false and misleading to investors. On April 23, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On April 24, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Philip Quartararo v. Armando Anido, et al., was filed against the Company, its current and former directors (Armando Anido, John P. Butler, Warren D. Cooper, William J. Federici, Thomas L. Harrison, Daniel L. Kisner, Kenneth I. Moch, and Pamela Stephenson), and its chief financial officer, James E. Fickenscher. The complaint generally alleges breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and violations of Section 14 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's disclosures around the BELIEVE I clinical trial. The Company said, "We believe that the claims asserted in these lawsuits are without merit, and we intend to defend these actions vigorously. There is no assurance, however, that we will be successful in the defense of these lawsuits, or any associated appeals, or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of these actions. Moreover, we are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible losses at this time. A resolution of these lawsuits in a manner adverse to us, however, could have a material effect on our financial position and results of operations in the period in which a particular lawsuit is resolved." Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. provides pharmaceutically-produced transdermal cannabinoid therapies for rare and near-rare neuropsychiatric disorders. The company is committed to improving the lives of patients and their families living with severe, chronic health conditions including Fragile X syndrome, or FXS, autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, or 22q, and a heterogeneous group of rare and ultra-rare epilepsies known as developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, or DEE. The company is based in Devon, Pennsylvania. ********* 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 ***