/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200715.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 15, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 141 Headlines 4 CAMINOS: Rodriguez Sues Over Unfair Minimum and Overtime Wages ABBVIE INC: Faces JM Smith Antitrust Suit Over Bystolic Drug ABIOMED INC: Labaton Sucharow to Lead Investor Class Action AIRCASTLE LTD: 7 Merger-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed ALAN KUNSMAN: Simard Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Laborers ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Slomanski Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Asten Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt ALPINE TOWING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Abreu Claims AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Qureshi Files Bid for Class Certification ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Knowlton ERISA Suit AROMATIQUE INTERNATIONAL: Blind Can't Use Website, Guglielmo Says AUSTRALIA: Industry Against Appeal of Live Export Ban Class Action B. GREEN & MORE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Baltazar Claims BJC HEALTH: Faces Vahle Suit in Eastern District of Missouri BLUE WORLD: Fiutem Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls BMW FINANCIAL: Rawlings Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action CAMPBELL DEVELOPMENT: Fletcher Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective CANADIAN HOCKEY: Ex-Major Junior Players File Abuse Class Action CARMAX INC: Gomez & McElhannon Class Suits Dismissed CBS TV: Harapeti Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective Action CBS: Harapeti Seeks to Certify Freelance TV Journalists Class CENTENE CO: Conditional Certification of Collective Action Denied CENTRELINK: Aus. Gov't. Urged to Pause Class Members' Robodebts CHOBANI LLC: Gaskell Sues Over Coffee Creamer's Deceptive Labels CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Denies Insurance Claims, T & E Chicago Says CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Motion for Class Certification Denied COSITAS RICAS: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Pay COSMETICA INC: Davis Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Dixon Seeks to Certify Class of Appraisers CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Seltz Seeks to Certify FLSA, DCMWA Classes CVS HEALTH: Labourers' Pension Appeals Ruling to N.Y. Sup. Ct. DIVERSITY AT WORK: Sutton Seeks Okay of Notice to Delivery Drivers DXC TECHNOLOGY: KBC Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 4th Cir. EASTERN DISTRIBUTORS: Alcantara Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Staff EDEN CREAMERY: Kamal Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclass ELLIS HOSPITAL: Faces Davella Suit Over Unpaid Meal Breaks ELMIRON: Bronstein Alerts Consumers of Lawsuit EN ENG'G: McConnell Seeks to Certify Straight Time Workers Class ENPHASE ENERGY: Block & Leviton Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ERIC RYAN CORP: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Gorss Motels TCPA Suit EXTRA BUTTER: Court Dismisses Calcano ADA Suit FALLS OF EDGEBROOK: Ponce Seeks Proper Pay for Leasing Agents FANSIDED INC: Misclassifies Site Experts, Carusillo Suit Alleges FELLOS NYC CONSTRUCTION: Uzhca Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages FELTEX CARPETS: Dying Man Backs Class Action Lawsuit FLIGHT SERVICES: Certification of Managers Class Sought FLOWCO PRODUCTION: Keating Seeks to Certify Field Technician Class FLUFF N FOLD: Faces Sosa Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Smith Suit over Ferrari Merger Underway FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Sought GENOMIC HEALTH: Flannery Sues Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duties GEO GROUP: Concealed COVID-19 Failures to Investors, Hartel Claims GLAD PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Buyers, Sosa Alleges GLOBAL TRAVEL: Wrobel Suit Seeks to Certify Class HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Indian American PA to Get $500K in Settlement HARVEY WEINSTEIN: To Pay $19MM Settlement to Dozens of Women HEALTHCARE VENTURES: Shiflet Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage HERTZ CORP: Denicolo Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses HOLLAND ACQUISITIONS: Tice Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA HORIZONS ETFS: Court of Appeal Overturns Decision HUGHES, AR: Court Declines to Conditionally Certify Collective IDEANOMICS INC: Still Faces Miranda Class Action in New York INMAR INC: Mr. Dee's Seeks to Certify Two Classes INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Founder Agrees to Settlement in Fraud Suit INTERSECT ENT: Yaron Class Action in California Underway ISLANDWIDE SEAMLESS: Calderon Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Laborers JACK'S EGGS: Reynoso Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages JACKSON HEWITT: Mardis, et al. Seek to Certify Class Action JENNIFER SHAFFER: Court Denies Class Certification in Brown Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: $2MM Attorney’s Fees on Settlement Deal JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hall Files Motion for Class Certification JOSE PEPPER'S: Underpays Servers, Florece Claims KANSAS STATE UNIV: Plank et al. Seek Tuition Fee Refund KINGOLD JEWELRY: Chitturi Sues over 24% Drop in Share Price KINGOLD JEWELRY: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit KINGOLD JEWELRY: Tysor Sues Over Decline in Value of Securities KROGER CO: Misclassifies Assistant Managers, Powell Claims KROGER CO: Mullins Seeks to Certify Assistant Store Managers Class L & S TOV: Fails to Pay Required Wages & OT, Delgado Alleges LLR INC: Kilpatrick Townsend Atty. Discusses Ruling in Van Suit LOCAL CANTINA: Smith Seeks Approval of Notice to FLSA Subclasses LOGICBIO THERAPEUTICS: Afinowicz Class Suit in New Jersey Underway LOS ANGELES, CA: Brewster Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses LOUIS MILUSNIC: Court Takes Torres Case Under Submission LOUISIANA: Court Denies Class Certification Bid as Premature LVNV FUNDING: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought M & R SECURITY: Ruiz Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA M STREET: Conditional Certification of Collective Action Sought MARYLAND: Kavanaugh Appeals Decision in Coreas Suit to 4th Cir. MAUVIEL USA: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA MCMC LLC: Amended Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice MDL 2244: Boyer v. Depuy Orthopaedics Transferred to N.D. Texas MDL 2672: Bid for Mistrial in VW Clean Diesel Suit Denied MDL 2672: Cal. District Court Enjoins Rambuski State Court Action MDL 2672: Court Remands T. Becker Suit to State Court MDL 2738: 4 Talcum Suits vs. Johnson & Johnson Moved to New Jersey MDL 2804: 14 National Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio MDL 2941: 13 Nine West LBO Securities Litigation Moved to S.D.N.Y. MEDCARE STAFFING: Court Denies Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. MEDSTAR HEALTH: Mismanaged Retirement Plan, Reed Claims MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Documentation of Savelstrov Pact Underway MESSERLI & KRAMER: Olszewski Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid MIELE INCORPORATED: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York MORTGAGE LENDERS: Pending Bid for Class Certification Mooted MOUNTAINSMITH LLC: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York NATIONAL FREIGHT: Court Grants Class Certification in Portillo Suit NAUTILUS INC: Misrepresents Treadmills' HP Ratings, Walker Claims NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Panzarella Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling to 3rd Cir. NEVADA ADULT: 9th Cir. Affirms Porter Suit Dismissal NEW YORK: Gym Owners Filing Class Action Lawsuit NEXTEP FUNDING: Court Dismisses CILA, Interest Act Suit NEXTIER OILFIELD: Davis et al. Ask Court to Approve Class Notice NEXTIER OILFIELD: Davis Seeks to Certify Hourly Paid Workers Class NEXTIER OILFIELD: Kenworthy et al. Ask Court to Okay Class Notice NMSO INC: Faces Mahmudur Employment Suit in California Super. Ct. NORCAL HOLISTICS: Bode Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE: Santiago Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Therapists NUCO2 LLC: Townhouse Files Renewed Bid to Certify Three Classes NYC TRUCKING: Faces Velasquez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ONTARIO: Koskie Minsky Files Care Home Negligence Class Action OXY USA: Must Face Gas Well Royalty Owners' Class Action PA URBAN AFFAIRS: Certification of FLSA Collective Sought PHH CORP: CWELT-2008 Series Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Cir. PLAID: Faces Class Action Over Data Privacy Violation PLAYAGS: Frank R. Cruz Law Files Securities Class Action PNC BANK: Court Modifies Class Certification Scope PRO-SEAL USA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Barazal Claims PROCESSED EGG: 3rd Cir. Affirms Antitrust Suit Dismissal RCI HOSPITALITY: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit REALPAGE INC: Kelly Suit Seeks Class Certification RELIABLE KNITTING: Gonzalez Seeks Website Access for Blind Buyers RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Heath Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Drivers RICK SNYDER: Carthan Suit Seek to Certify Class & 3 Subclasses RPA ENERGY: Faces Shelton TCPA Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing RUSSELL PLASTICS: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Rodriguez Alleges SAG-AFTRA: Risto Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Featured Artists SAGGIO RESTAURANT: Tacuri Seeks Damages for FLSA, NYLL Violations SALLIE MAE BANK: Gilder Sues Over Discriminatory Background Check SANCHEZ OIL: Hutchins' Conditional Certification Bid Okayed in Part SCHEER, GREEN: Young Sues Over Misleading, Unfair Debt Collection SCWORX CORP: Continues to Defend COVID-19 Rapid Test Kits Suits SCWORX CORP: Faces Leonard Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop SIGNET JEWELERS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for July 21 SIGNET JEWELERS: Suit Against SJI Ongoing in S.D.N.Y. SIMS GROUP: Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Sought SIX SLICE: Bailey Seeks to Notify Class of Delivery Drivers STAMPS.COM INC: Karinski Seeks to Certify Class Action STATE COLLECTION: Placeholder Class Cert. Sought in Watson Suit STEINHOFF INT'L: Likely Near to Settling $11 Bil. in Legal Claims STITCH FIX: Website Unaccessible to Blind Users, Tenzer-Fuchs Says SUBARU: Starlink Lawsuit Settlement Granted Final Approval SUNCREST BUILDERS: Nevada High Court Affirms Rotes Case Dismissal TAKATA CORP: CarMax Gets $40.3MM in Airbag Settlement TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order in Antitrust Suit TERRAFORM POWER: Still Faces Dearborn Police & Rosson Class Suit TILRAY INC: Still Defends Consolidated Braun Suit in Delaware TILRAY INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suits in New York TIM HORTONS: Sued for Tracking Mobile App Users TOTAL GAS: Long Beach Appeals Decisions in Antitrust Class Suit TRANSCANADA USA: Court Certifies Inspectors' Class TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Jones FDCPA Suit in C.D. California TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Dismissal of Wrongful Foreclosure Suit Upheld TURNING POINT: Reynolds Suit Seeks Class Certification TWIN CITY: Denies Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, Zagafen Suit Says UNILEVER US: Court Denies Pardini Motion for Class Certification UNITED STATES: Fed. Cl. Endorses OK of $137MM Deal on Quapaw Claims USC: Choi Seeks Refund of Tuition & Fees Due to COVID-19 Closure VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Class Cert. Proceedings Stayed in "Ureda" VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Ureda Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Investigating Investor Claims WAL-MART: Court Narrows Employment Discrimination Claims WALMART INC: Ceballos-Birney Alleges Mislabeling of Infant Meds WARDEN REHERMAN: Hague Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates WELLPET LLC: Zeiger Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes WELLS FARGO: Fails to Give Apt Repossession Notices, Sorace Says WEST VIRGINIA: Court Certifies County Ballot Commissioners Class WESTGATE RESORTS: Hambacker Balks at Marketing of Timeshares WHISKEY ROW: Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Sought WHITEHOUSE ESTATES: Eastgate Appeals Judgment in Casey Class Suit WILLIE BREEDT: Faces Hawkes Investigation Amid Class Action WORLD WIDE CONSULTING: Initial Settlement Approval Sought YOUTUBE INC: Hit With Class Action for Not Protecting Copyrights [*] Australia Has High Exposure to Securities Class Action Risk [*] Clyde & Co Tackles AU COVID-19 Securities Class Action Trends [*] How Canada's Banks Are Failing Homeowners ********* 4 CAMINOS: Rodriguez Sues Over Unfair Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- 4 CAMINOS MEXICAN RESTAURANT, CORP. (D/B/A 4 CAMINOS), ADELA GARCIA, PEDRO CHAUCA, FRANCISCO COYOTL, KARIN CHAUCA, NANDO DOE, JONNY R. CAJAHUARINGA, and CATHERINE CAJAHUARINGA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02975 (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2020) alleges that Defendants failed to provide appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed as a delivery worker, dishwasher, cook, waiter, stock and inventory worker, and packaging worker at Defendants' restaurant in New York. The complaint asserts that Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff's actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a delivery worker and waiter instead of as a non-tipped employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff Rodriguez at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him at the tip-credit rate. Defendants also maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating Plaintiff's and other tipped employees' tips and made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff's and other tipped employees' wages. Further, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff 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. 4 Caminos Mexican Restaurant, Corp. is a New York-based Mexican restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ABBVIE INC: Faces JM Smith Antitrust Suit Over Bystolic Drug ------------------------------------------------------------ J M SMITH CORPORATION d/b/a SMITH DRUG COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABBVIE INC., ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, ALLERGAN USA, INC., FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., FOREST LABORATORIES HOLDINGS, LTD., FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND, LTD., and FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04581 (N.D. Cal., July 9, 2020) is a civil antitrust action seeking treble damages arising out of the Defendants' violations of the antitrust laws with the unlawful exclusion of generic substitutes for the branded drug Bystolic, otherwise known as nebivolol hydrochloride or nebivolol HCl, a "beta blocker" used to treat high blood pressure. Forest and its successors manufacture the brand version of Bystolic, which is one of their key drugs, delivering nearly $1 billion in United States annual sales. Although would-be generic manufacturers began applying with the United States Food and Drug Administration to market generic nebivolol HCl on December 17, 2011, no generic competitor has or will enter until September 17, 2021. According to the complaint, Forest engineered a series of unlawful reversepayment deals with each of its would-be generic competitors, specifically, Hetero, Torrent, Alkem, Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen and Watson. From October 2012 through November 2013, Forest entered into these serial deals pursuant to which each generic (1) agreed not to compete with Forest or enter the market prior to September 17, 2021, unless another generic competitor entered the market earlier; and in exchange (2) received "side-deals," and cash payments, the precise amounts of which have not been publicly disclosed except that, on information and belief, they each exceed $15,000,000 in value. As corporate successors to one or more of the Defendants, Allergan and then AbbVie have continued this illegal collusion and unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for nebivolol HCl, all at the expense of purchasers. Every month of delayed generic competition has allowed Forest and its successors to unlawfully maintain many millions of dollars in monopoly profits from Bystolic without generic competition and allowed the Generic Competitors to share in those profits by pocketing large and unjustified payments from Forest and its successors for agreeing to delay bringing generic nebivolol HCl to market. Forest also disclosed that its settlement agreements with the Generic Competitors "provide[d] a license to each of the Settling Defendants that will permit them to launch their respective generic versions of Bystolic as of the date that is the later of (a) three calendar months prior to the expiration of the '040 patent, including any extensions and/or pediatric exclusivities or (b) the date that each Settling Defendant receives final FDA approval of its ANDA, or earlier in certain circumstances. Defendants' conduct was designed to, did, and continues to: (a) delay the entry of less expensive, AB-rated generic versions of Bystolic; (b) fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the price of nebivolol HCl; and (c) allocate 100% of the United States market for nebivolol HCl to themselves until three months before expiration of the '040 Patent. Defendants' monopoly power in the nebivolol HCl market was maintained through willful exclusionary conduct, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a legally-obtained valid patent, other legally-obtained market exclusivity, a superior product, business acumen, or historical accident. Defendants' scheme violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, injuring Plaintiff and the Class of direct purchasers it seeks to represent and causing them to pay overcharges. Plaintiff J M Smith Corporation, d/b/a Smith Drug Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of South Carolina. Abbvie Inc., Allergan, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan USA, Inc., Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., and Forest Laboratories, LLC are pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. Forest Laboratories Ireland, Ltd. is a Dublin, Ireland-based pharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com - and - Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. Joseph Opper, Esq. Dan Litvin, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 398-0055 E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com jopper@garwingerstein.com dlitvin@garwingerstein.com - and - Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq. Andrew W. Kelly, Esq. ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 522-0077 E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com akelly@odrlaw.com - and - Susan Segura, Esq. David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq. Erin R. Leger, Esq. SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER, LLP 221 Ansley Blvd. Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 445-4480 E-mail: ssegura@ssrllp.com draphael@ssrllp.com eleger@ssrllp.com - and - Russ Chorush, Esq. HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP 1111 Bagby, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-2000 E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq. Daniel C. Simons, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net ccoslett@bm.net dsimons@bm.net - and - Peter Kohn, Esq. Joseph T. Lukens, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP One Penn Center, Suite 1550 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com jlukens@faruqilaw.com ABIOMED INC: Labaton Sucharow to Lead Investor Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a New York federal judge on June 29 tapped Labaton Sucharow LLP to lead a proposed class of investors alleging medical device developer Abiomed Inc. misled them about the company's finances, leading to a drop in stock prices. [GN] AIRCASTLE LTD: 7 Merger-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Aircastle Limited discloses in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that seven merger-related lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed. These lawsuits include two putative class actions styled: Jordan Rosenblatt v. Aircastle Limited, et al.; and Daniel Hotop v. Aircastle Limited, et al. On January 2, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a putative class action lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, captioned Daniel Hotop v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. FST-CV20-6045115 (the "Hotop Action"). The complaint in the Hotop Action was voluntarily withdrawn on April 29, 2020. The six Federal Actions are: * On December 18, 2019, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned David Younge v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11574 (the "Younge Action"). * On December 18, 2019, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a putative class action lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02295 (the "Rosenblatt Action"). * On January 3, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, captioned Ruda Anderson v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00017 (the "Anderson Action"). * On January 21, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Sherie Johnson v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00334 (the "Johnson Action"). * On January 28, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Howard Shoemaker v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00746 (the "Shoemaker Action"). * On February 14, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Marc Podems v. Aircastle Limited, et al., 1:20-cv-01319 (the "Podems Action"). The Federal Actions allege that, among other things, the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 14d- 9 by omitting or misrepresenting certain allegedly material information in the proxy statement. The Federal Actions seek, among other things: (i) injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the proposed transaction; (ii) rescissory damages or rescission in the event the proposed transaction is consummated; and (iii) plaintiffs' attorneys' and experts' fees. All of the Federal Actions have been voluntarily dismissed. The complaint in the Younge Action was voluntarily dismissed on February 26, 2020. The complaint in the Rosenblatt Action was voluntarily dismissed on March 24, 2020. The complaint in the Anderson Action was voluntarily dismissed on March 9, 2020. The complaint in the Johnson Action was voluntarily dismissed on April 1, 2020. The complaint in the Podems Action was voluntarily dismissed on May 8, 2020. The complaint in the Shoemaker Action was voluntarily dismissed on May 12, 2020. Aircastle Limited provides aircraft finance and leasing services. The Company is acquires, leases, and sells high-utility commercial jet aircraft to airlines. Aircastle serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Stamford Connecticut. ALAN KUNSMAN: Simard Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Laborers ----------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW SIMARD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALAN KUNSMAN ROOFING AND SIDING INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-03366 (E.D. Pa., July 9, 2020) is an action against Defendant seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Laborer from around May 2016 until around May 2020. Like other Laborers, Plaintiff sometimes worked over 40 hours per week. For example, during the two-week pay period ending December 1, 2018, Plaintiff was credited with working 3.25 overtime hours. In determining the overtime pay owed to Plaintiff and other collective members, Defendant violated the FLSA and PMWA by: (i) limiting credited hours to those incurred at the job site; (ii) failing to calculate overtime based on a weighted average rate during weeks in which an employee is paid at two or more different straight-time rates; and (iii) failing to include (either contemporaneously or retroactively) non-discretionary bonus payments in calculating overtime rates for weeks in which such bonus payments were earned. Alan Kunsman Roofing and Siding Inc. is a roofing and siding company headquartered in Freemansburg, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. Winebrake & Santillo, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Slomanski Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as John Slomanski and Margaret Brusewitz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ALLIANCE COLLECTION AGENCIES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00956-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order to certify class, appoint themselves as the class representative, and appoint their attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Asten Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt -------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Von Asten, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL LP, Case No. 2:20-cv-01020 (E.D. Wis., July 7, 2020), seeks redress for collection practices that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On November 2, 2019, USAA Federal Savings Bank ("USAA") mailed an account statement to the Plaintiff. The Account Statement states that the "PREVIOUS BALANCE" of the Plaintiff's alleged debt is $14,611.60. The Account Statement, thus, states that, as of November 2, 2019, the Plaintiff's alleged debt had a "TOTAL PAYMENT DUE" amount of $2,035.20, a "TOTAL PAST DUE" amount of $1,701.56, an "AMOUNT DUE" of $333.64 associated with a "PAYMENT DUE DATE" of November 14, 2019. The Plaintiff notes that the acceleration clause in the underlying credit agreement governing the alleged debt referenced in The Account Statement provided for optional acceleration upon the consumer's default. On October 23, 2019, Alltran mailed the Plaintiff a debt collection letter regarding the same alleged debt owed to USAA. A copy of this letter is attached to this complaint as The Letter. The Letter was mailed to the Plaintiff's former address, but was forwarded to the Plaintiff's current address upon Alltran's request. The Plaintiff asserts that the Letter makes no reference whatsoever to any minimum payment amount that the Plaintiff could pay to return the account to a current status. The Letter, thus, represents that the debt had been accelerated and the full balance was due when The Letter was mailed. The representation in The Letter that, as of October 23, 2019, the Plaintiff's account had been accelerated is deceptive, misleading, and unconscionable, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff was confused by the Account Statement and the Letter. The unsophisticated consumer would be confused by the Account Statement and the Letter. The Plaintiff had to spend time and money investigating the Account Statement and the Letter, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a "consumer" in that the Defendant sought to collect from the Plaintiff a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. Alltran is engaged in the business of a collection agency, using the mails and telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed to others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com ALPINE TOWING: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Abreu Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, OYDUMIS ABREU, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALPINE TOWING, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation and LARRY J. SARAVIA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-22738-UU (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt tow truck driver from on or about March 2020 until on or about June 19, 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked between 60-84 hours per week. However, Defendant did not properly compensate Plaintiff for those hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, thereby failing to pay him overtime at one and one-half times his regular rate pursuant to the FLSA. Larry J. Saravia is a corporate officer and controls operation of the corporate Defendant Alpine Towing. Alpine Towing, Inc. operates and specializes in performing towing services to automobiles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. Juan J. Perez, Esq. PEREGONZA LAW GROUP, PLLC 1414 NW 107th Ave., Suite 302 Doral, FL 33172 Tel: (786) 650-0202 Fax: (786) 650-0200 Emails: nathaly@peregonza.com juan@peregonza.com AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Qureshi Files Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MAAZ QURESHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01141-CRC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying this action to proceed as a class action; 2. appointing herself as class representative; and/or 3. appointing her attorneys as class counsel. The American University is a private research university in Washington, D.C. Its main campus spans 90 acres at the former site of Fort Gaines on Ward Circle, in the Spring Valley neighborhood in the northwest of the District.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis A. Boykin, Esq. Frederick A. Douglas, Esq. Tram T. Pham, Esq. DOUGLAS & BOYKIN PLLC 1850 M Street, NW, Ste. 640 Washington, DC 20036-5836 Telephone: (202) 776-0370 Facsimile: (202) 776-0975 E-mail: caboykin@douglasboykin.com fadouglas@douglasboyin.com tpham@douglasboykin.com - and - Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 614-8888 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Knowlton ERISA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Brian Knowlton, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and Order dated August 24, 2019, June 27, 2019 and June 8, 2020, Judgment dated September 27, 2019, and Addendum to Judgment dated June 24, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Brian Knowlton, et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-00210-SNLJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendants' Motion for Approval of Form of Judgment in the case captioned BRIAN KNOWLTON, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, LLC, et al., Consolidated Case No. 4:13-cv-210 SNLJ. (E.D. Mo.). Nearly four years ago, the District Court granted judgment on the pleadings to the Plaintiffs, who claimed that, as salaried participants in the Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan (Pension Plan), they were entitled to certain enhanced retirement benefits under Section 19.11(f) of the Plan. The Defendants responded that the Plaintiffs never sought to resolve the motion without the Court's involvement, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and represent that they have now provided the information in question. Moreover, the Plaintiffs filed no reply to argue otherwise. The Plaintiffs object to Defendants' proposal on several grounds. First, they insist that the Court must make the necessary damages calculations, not the Plan. This Court understands the Eighth Circuit to require that the judgment includes the amount of the damages awards for the class. But nothing prevents the Plan from performing the calculations, as it is equipped to do and providing that information for the Court's review and approval. Moreover, it appears that the Plaintiffs' actuary has already approved the calculations as they were run the first time. There is no reason that the parties cannot confer on the damages awards before the schedules are submitted to the Court for final judgment. Next, Plaintiffs articulate that they do object to the Defendants' calculations in that the Defendants do not plan to provide a benefits calculation for the Group B class members. But Group B members have not elected benefits, and they have not been damaged. When they do elect benefits, they will receive the enhanced pension benefit of Section 19.11(f) pursuant to the judgment in this case. Plaintiffs argue that the Group B members' future pension benefits should be calculated as of the date on which each member would first be eligible to elect to receive full retirement benefits. The appellate case is captioned as Brian Knowlton, et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, et al., Case No. 20-2357, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appendix is due on August 17, 2020; -- Brief of Appellants Nancy J. Anderson, Richard F. Angevine, Andy Fichthorn, Brian Knowlton, Gary Lensenmayer, Donald W. Mills Jr., Douglas Minerd, Joe Mullins and Charles R. Wetesnik is due on August 17, 2020; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Brian Knowlton, individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; Douglas Minerd, individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; Gary Lensenmayer, individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; Charles R. Wetesnik, individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; Nancy J. Anderson; Richard F. Angevine; Joe Mullins; Andy Fichthorn; and Donald W. Mills, Jr., are represented by: Karl A. Bekeny, Esq. Christine M. Snyder, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113-7213 Telephone: (216) 696-2699 E-mail: karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com christine.snyder@tuckerellis.com - and - Scott J. Stitt, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 175 S. Third Street, Suite 520 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 358-9717 E-mail: scott.stitt@tuckerellis.com - and - Joseph R. Dulle, Esq. Paul J. Puricelli, Esq. STONE, LEYTON & GERSHMAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 500 Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000 Telephone: (3140 721-7011 E-mail: jdulle@stoneleyton.com ppuricelli@stoneleyson.com - and - Charles Grebing, Esq. Andrew Servais, Esq. WINGERT, GREBING, BRUBAKER & JUSKIE, LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-8151 E-mail: cgrebing@wingertlaw.com aservais@wingertlaw.com - and - Joe David Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PRESS P.C. 222 S. Central Avenue, Suite 550 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: 314-899-9789 E-mail: Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com Defendants-Appellees Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan, Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan Appeals Committee, and Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan Administrative Committee, are represented by: Jennifer L. Aspinall, Esq. James F. Bennett, Esq. DOWD BENNETT LLP 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1900 Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com - and - Jessica Anne Frogge, Esq. Albert L. Hogan, III, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606-1720 Telephone: (312) 407-0700 E-mail: jessica.frogge@skadden.com al.hogan@skadden.com - and - Peter B. Morrison, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-0000 Telephone: (213) 687-5000 E-mail: peter.morrison@skadden.com AROMATIQUE INTERNATIONAL: Blind Can't Use Website, Guglielmo Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AROMATIQUE INTERNATIONAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05183 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant discriminates against blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, by failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.aromatique.com, in a manner that can provide full and equal access to all consumers, including those with disabilities. The website lacks a variety of features and accommodations, which barred the Plaintiff from being able to browse products and services and potentially make a purchase. The access barriers on the website include, but not limited to, the following: (1) web pages contain the same title elements; (2) absence of a label element or title attribute for each field; (3) lacks of alt. text, which is the invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image; and (4) presence of a host of broken links on the website. The Defendant's failure to take necessary measures to correct these access barriers on the website effectively denied the Plaintiff and Class members full and equal use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services the Defendant offers to the public. Aromatique International LLC is a fragrance company based in New York that owns and operates the website www.aromatique.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com AUSTRALIA: Industry Against Appeal of Live Export Ban Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Garrick of ABC Net (Australia) reports that almost a decade after the live export ban was introduced in Australia, the Federal Court has recognised the pain it inflicted on those in the industry. Handing down his findings last month on a class action brought on by hundreds of cattle producers against the Commonwealth, Justice Stephen Rares described the decision taken by the then agriculture minister Joe Ludwig as "invalid and capricious". "I am comfortably satisfied, based on the whole of the evidence, that the minister was recklessly indifferent as to first, the availability of his power to make the ban order in its absolutely prohibitory terms without providing any power of exception and, secondly, as to the injury which the order, when effectual, was calculated to produce," he said. "Accordingly, the minister committed a misfeasance in public office when he made the ban order on June 7, 2011." The industry hopes that will see the swift delivery of $600 million in compensation for lost income sought by the claimants. There's been movement this week, with the primary applicant in the action, NT pastoralists Brett Cattle Company, awarded nearly $3 million in damages for the ban--but nearly 300 other parties are still waiting. "People from the land, and in particular from the cattle industry in the Northern Territory, are incredibly resilient, but even their patience gets tested over time," NT Cattlemen's Association CEO Ashley Manicaros said. The Federal Government is yet to say if it will appeal the court's decision. "We will not be making any decision regarding an appeal on the specific point of law for some time," Attorney-General Christian Porter told the ABC. However he acknowledged the hardship the Commonwealth's 2011 move caused. "Live cattle exporters were dealt with egregiously by the Gillard government and they deserve the support of ensuring that their injury and hurt and their loss is addressed," he said. The NT Cattlemen's Association said an appeal should be ruled out. "The Federal Government shouldn't appeal because if they want the public and the industry and the community to have faith in governments, then they need to fix up their decision-making processes," Mr. Manicaros said. "And they need to demonstrate some trust." [GN] B. GREEN & MORE: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Baltazar Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE BALTAZAR, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B. GREEN & MORE LANDSCAPING INC.; and BILLY M. LOPEZ, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-14219 (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Baltazar was employed by the Defendants as landscaper. B. Green & More Landscaping Inc. is a full-service landscaping company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BJC HEALTH: Faces Vahle Suit in Eastern District of Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against BJC Health System. The case is captioned as Jason Vahle, as parent, guardian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated next friend K.V. v. BJC Health System, Case No. 4:20-cv-00811-SRC (E.D. Mo., June 22, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Clark. The lawsuit demands $5 million in damages. BJC HealthCare is a non-profit health care organization based in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Michael Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com BLUE WORLD: Fiutem Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ---------------------------------------------------- The case, CAROLYN FIUTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE WORLD POOLS, INC., a Georgia corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02832-JPB (N.D. Ga., July 7, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited calls. According to the complaint, Defendant relies on direct solicitations to consumers, such as making telemarketing calls to consumers whose phone numbers were registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that he has received numerous unsolicited calls from Defendant's phone number 855-203-1314 despite her request to stop. Moreover, Defendant's unauthorized telephone calls have caused Plaintiff harm in the form of annoyance, nuisance, ad invasion of privacy. Blue World Pools, Inc. sells and installs above-ground swimming pools to consumers throughout the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tristan W. Gillespie, Esq. 5150 College Farm Rd. John's Creek, GA 30022 Tel: (404) 276-7277 Email: Gillespie.tristan@gmail.com - and – Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com BMW FINANCIAL: Rawlings Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as RAWLINGS, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02289-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the case as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "all former and current call center employees employed by the Defendant who worked 40 hours in any workweek at any time beginning three years prior to the filing of this Motion to the present"; 2. authorizing sending of the proposed Notice and opt-in form to all potential class members, so as to provide them a meaningful opportunity to understand their rights and to join this litigation if they so choose. The Defendant employs hourly, non-exempt Call Center Employees in the recovery department, collection department, and customer service department. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated Call Center Employees regularly worked forty or more hours per workweek. They were not paid for all hours worked, specifically because the Defendant did not permit them to clock in upon arrival at the floor, but only after they performed necessary and required pre-shift duties, says the complaint. The company operates its primary customer service call center in Hilliard, Ohio.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614 949-1181 Facsimile: 614-386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614-704-0546 Facsimile: 614-573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com CAMPBELL DEVELOPMENT: Fletcher Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SEAN FLETCHER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAMPBELL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00641-CB (Filed W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying this matter as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and approving notice on an expedited basis. Campbell is a nationwide, full service land company that provides better land services to the energy, real estate and utility industries.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com CANADIAN HOCKEY: Ex-Major Junior Players File Abuse Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Davies, writing for The Peterborough Examiner, reports that major junior hockey may be forced to confront some dark moments in its history in a class-action lawsuit. Former NHL and Sarnia Sting player Daniel Carcillo is spearheading the lawsuit against the Canadian Hockey League and its member teams on behalf of players who allege abuse while playing major junior hockey. Carcillo, who played in the Ontario Hockey League between 2002-05, and Garrett Taylor, who played in the Western Hockey League from 2008-10, filed a statement of claim June 18 with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The CHL and its three member organizations--the WHL, OHL and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League--are listed as defendants, as are all 60 teams. A statement from Koskie Minsky LLP, the law firm representing Carcillo and Taylor, said the action "is on behalf of children aged 15-17 who were sexually and physically assaulted, hazed and otherwise abused while away from home and playing for CHL teams." The allegations haven't been proven in court. The claim was filed the same week former Kitchener Rangers player Eric Guest told The Hockey News as a rookie he was forced by an older teammate to use cocaine at a party. Guest said he never told anyone in the Rangers' organization. On June 25, the CHL announced it will form an independent panel to review league policies and practices related to hazing, abuse, harassment and bullying and the allegation players don't feel comfortable reporting behaviours that contravene these policies. "We are deeply troubled," a CHL statement read, "by the allegations in the recently announced class action, many of which are historic in nature and we believe are not indicative of the leading experience our players receive in the CHL today. Regardless of the timing, we are taking the claims very seriously as the protection of our players has been and will always be our primary concern." The CHL said each year its teams are charged with the care and safety of 1,400 young men and is committed to ensuring an environment that is players first and free of hazing, abuse, harassment and bullying and provides zero tolerance for any of these behaviours. "The CHL and its member leagues have made a number of advancements to enhance our player experience programs over the past 20 years," states the release. "We have been working with organizations such as the Canadian Mental Health Association, Canadian Red Cross and Respect in Sport to develop extensive policies and practices to educate players and team staff on the importance of respect and prevention of hazing, abuse, harassment and bullying." CHL teams conduct annual player conduct and safety training involving procedures for filing a complaint without fear of reprisal. It includes advising a coach, general manager, police liaison, player liaison or a governor or league official. If criminal conduct is involved, players are encouraged to contact police. "We believe these programs protect our players and ensure that everyone associated with our teams understand that the type of misconduct alleged is not tolerated," stated the CHL. The CHL hopes the independent review will be completed prior to the 2020-21 season. "We welcome the findings of the Independent Review Panel to ensure we are providing the safest player experience in hockey and amateur sport," stated the release. The lawsuit seeks damages for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and a declaration that the teams and leagues are vicariously liable for abuse perpetrated by their employees and players. "This case is on behalf of underage minors who suffered violent hazing, physical and sexual assault and psychological trauma while playing major junior hockey," Carcillo said in a statement. "I was one of those kids when I played in the OHL. I know there are many more just like me." [GN] CARMAX INC: Gomez & McElhannon Class Suits Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suits entitled, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. and erek McElhannon et al v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., have been dismissed as the claims of the plaintiffs will be addressed in a global settlement. CarMax entities are defendants in four proceedings asserting wage and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants and non-exempt employees in California. The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage, provide meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages, reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General Act claims. On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of attorneys' fees. On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks declaratory relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees. On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores California, LLC et. al., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus. The Sabanovich lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees. On November 21, 2018, Derek McElhannon et al v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. On February 1, 2019, the McElhannon lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The lawsuit was remanded back to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda on June 4, 2019. The McElhannon lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory and/or civil penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees. CarMax has reached a memorandum of understanding and expects to finalize a global agreement settling the Weiss, Gomez and McElhannon lawsuits on a class basis. Once final, the settlement agreement will be submitted for approval to the Superior Court of California, County of Placer as part of the Weiss lawsuit. In anticipation of the consolidation of claims under the global settlement agreement, on March 11, 2020, the Gomez and McElhannon lawsuits were dismissed, as the claims of the plaintiffs will be addressed in the global settlement. The monetary settlement under this agreement is for an immaterial amount that has been fully accrued. The Sabanovich lawsuit is not included in the global settlement agreement. CarMax said, "Based upon our evaluation of information currently available, we believe that the ultimate resolution of the foregoing proceedings will not have a material adverse effect, either individually or in the aggregate, on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia. CBS TV: Harapeti Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SILVA HARAPETI, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. CBS TELEVISION STATIONS, INC. a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-20961-KMW (S.D. Fla., Filed January 29, 2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: a. conditionally certifying a collective action consisting of: "current and former Freelance Television Journalists who worked for the Defendants nationwide in the last three years prior to the filing of the complaint and who were not paid overtime compensation for their hours worked over 40 each week and equitably toll the statute of limitations to include Freelance Television Journalists who were not on notice of their rights under the FLSA since 2011, the year when Plaintiff began working for Defendant"; b. compelling expedited production by the Defendant, within 15 days of Court Order, of a complete list of each and every person -- and their last-known home addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and social security numbers -- who was employed by the Defendant, performed services on the Defendant's behalf, and/or performed services which benefited Defendant in any way, at any time for the past three years, and who was classified and/or described by Defendant as a "Freelance Television Journalists", or the like"; c. requiring the Defendant, in light of the relatively large number or persons in the Proposed Class, to provide the Plaintiff's counsel with the list both by hard copy and electronically -- in an Excel spreadsheet with each person listed alphabetically form "A" to "Z" and with each person's last-known home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and social security number in a separate field corresponding with each name; d. authorizing the Plaintiff counsel's mailing of a Court- approved Notice to all such persons about their right to opt into this collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit; e. requiring that the Parties' counsel confer on the contents of the Notice and, if the parties' counsel are unable to agree on the form, they are to submit the disputed issues to this Court for resolution and such submissions shall occur no less than 15 days after the entry of the Order; f. authorizing the undersigned counsel to send initial notice, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel by first-collective action mail and via e-mail; g. directing the Defendant to post at all of its business locations located within its b ranches, a copy of the initial notice in the form; h. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send a follow-up notice, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel but who, by the 14th day prior to the close of the Court-approved notice period, have yet to opt in to the instant action; and i. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel a total of 60 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form. The Plaintiff alleges that she and the other news reporters and producers who worked for the Defendant nationwide, who were subjected to a common practice or policy of the company to pay news reporters and/or producers who appeared on air and/or produced news stories on a per diem basis, and consequently, this policy caused the Defendant to fail paying the members of this putative collective action overtime. The Plaintiff's claim is for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff began work for the Defendant on February 2011. The Plaintiff held her job until, March 17, 2018, when her employment ended. CBS Television is a division of the CBS Entertainment Group unit of ViacomCBS that owns and operates a group of American television stations.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq. Daniel J. Bujan, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com Dbujan@rgpattorneys.com CBS: Harapeti Seeks to Certify Freelance TV Journalists Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SILVA HARAPETI, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, v. CBS TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-20961-KMW (S.D. Fla., Filed Jan. 29, 2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: a. conditionally certifying a collective action of: "current and former Freelance Television Journalists who worked for the Defendants nationwide in the last three years prior to the filing of the Complaint and who were not paid overtime compensation for their hours worked over 40 each week and equitably toll the statute of limitations to include Freelance Television Journalists who were not on notice of their rights under the FLSA since 2011, the year when Plaintiff began working for the Defendant"; b. compelling expedited production by the Defendant, within 15 days of Court Order, of a complete list of each and every person -- and their last-known home addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and social security numbers -- who was employed by the Defendant, performed services on the Defendant's behalf, and/or performed services which benefited Defendant in any way, at any time for the past three years, and who was classified and/or described by the Defendant as a "Freelance Television Journalists" or the like; c. requiring the Defendant, in light of the relatively large number or persons in the Proposed Class, to provide the Plaintiff's counsel with the list both by hard copy and electronically--in an Excel spreadsheet with each person listed alphabetically form "A" to "Z" and with each person's last-known home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and social security number in a separate field corresponding with each name; d. authorizing the Plaintiff counsel's mailing of a Court- approved Notice to all such persons about their right to opt into this collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit; e. requiring that the parties' counsel confer on the contents of the Notice and, if the parties' counsel are unable to agree on the form, they are to submit the disputed issues to this Court for resolution and such submissions shall occur no less than 15 days after the entry of the Order; and f. authorizing her counsel to send initial notice, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel by first-collective action mail and via e-mail; g. directing the Defendant to post at all of its business locations located within its b ranches, a copy of the initial notice; h. authorizing her counsel to send a follow-up notice, to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel but who, by the 14th day prior to the close of the Court-approved notice period, have yet to opt in to the instant action; and i. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel a total of 60 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff form. This is a collective action to enforce the overtime provisions of Section 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals performed work for Defendants as non-exempt "Freelance Television Journalists." The Plaintiff began work for the Defendant on February 2011. She held her job until, March 17, 2018, when her employment ended. CBS Television Stations Inc., doing business as CBS4, provides broadcasting services. The Company offers local news and information, user-generated content, advertising, e-commerce, and other services.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq. Daniel J. Bujan, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com Dbujan@rgpattorneys.com CENTENE CO: Conditional Certification of Collective Action Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SHELLEY WHITTENBERG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND STEFANIE BARRERA, v. CENTENE COMPANY OF TEXAS, L.P., CENTENE CORPORATION, CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00353-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney denied, without prejudice, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of collective action and the Plaintiff's motion for approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact information. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden to demonstrate that a nationwide class of similarly situated Level 2 Service Coordinators exists with respect to the Fair Labor Standards Act claims asserted in their lawsuit. The Court will therefore deny the Plaintiffs’ motions for conditional certification and notice. The Court will permit Plaintiffs to refile these motions, however, if they are able to provide the Court with evidence and specific allegations in support of their contention that all Services Coordinators are treated similarly, so the denial will be without prejudice." Centene offers healthcare solutions.[CC] CENTRELINK: Aus. Gov't. Urged to Pause Class Members' Robodebts --------------------------------------------------------------- Emily McPherson, writing for 9News, reports that law firm Gordon Legal has called on the government to pause the robodebts of all of its class action members, rather than just those Centrelink has identified as being eligible for a refund. In May, Centrelink sent a letter to 617,000 former welfare recipients who had been hit with a robodebt since 2015, notifying them they were able to take part in a massive lawsuit being brought against the government. In an embarrassing backflip, the government says it will be refunding the robodebts of 373,000 of those class action members. The debts--which have been put on pause and are to be refunded from July--are those which were calculated using an ATO income averaging system that was found to be unlawful. However, the government insists that the remaining hundreds of thousands robodebts it issued under the scheme were lawful and correct, leaving many in limbo and waiting on the results of the Federal Court case--due to go to trial in September--to find out what will happen with their debt. Nine.com.au understands that as well as those already in line for Centrelink refunds, there are two other broad groups of robodebt class action members. Around 70,000 people were given a robodebt but ignored it completely and did not pay off any of it. Those members are seeking to have their debt quashed through the class action. The remaining 170,000 class action members have paid off all or some of their robodebt. Despite Centrelink claiming the debts are legitimate, Gordon Legal says it believes a substantial proportion of this group may also be eligible for refunds and compensation. However, many of the 170,000 are still paying off their robodebt, because the government has not put it on pause. One of those people is Dimity Rumley, from Adelaide, who was given a $4500 robodebt back in 2018. Despite not believing the debt was accurate, Ms. Rumley said she agreed to go on a repayment plan of $100 a fortnight back in 2018 after being threatened with debt collectors. Ms. Rumley told nine.com.au that she was relieved when she got a letter from Centrelink from May identifying her as part of the robodebt class action and expected her deductions from Centrelink to stop. However, Ms. Rumley said she was shocked to see that Centrelink was still taking money out of her account. "I'm so confused. Why is Centrelink still taking money to pay off the debt if it's a robodebt and I'm part of the class action?" she said. Ms. Rumley said that when she contacted Centrelink, she was told that she was not one of the 373,000 receiving a refund. "He said that my debt was not averaged because I had uploaded a document but I can't remember uploading any documents," Ms. Rumley said. "I don't think it's right, I feel like something is off and I don't think what they are doing is fair," she said. Ms. Rumley said Centrelink had agreed to put her debt on pause after a request from her. Services Australia General Manager Hank Jongen confirmed Centrelink had only paused debts which were calculated through income averaging. However, other debts could be paused on request as part of Centrelink's response to COVID-19, he said. "When Services Australia identified a debt that relied solely or partially on income averaging, we also paused agency deductions for that debt," he said. "Under the current national debt pause in response to the coronavirus pandemic, if a customer has an existing repayment arrangement with the agency for other debts, these will continue unless they contact us to amend or pause the arrangement." Gordon Legal lawyer Andrew Grech said his firm was still being contacted by people being chased for robodebt payments, including by debt collectors. Mr. Grech said the government needed at the very least to stop collecting money from all class action members until the case was decided by the courts. "Given that they have already made very substantial admissions about the problems with the whole program, we think that the sensible thing to do would be to pause," Mr. Grech said. "Let the case be heard so that the court has the opportunity to decide what the rights of those affected are and to ensure that they are dealt with in a comprehensive way. "At the moment all Commonwealth is doing is adding to the uncertainty faced by group members who through no fault of their own have been caught up in its unlawful robodebt scheme". Mr. Grech said Gordon Legal planned to make several claims in court on behalf of the group who had paid money to Centrelink but were currently being denied refunds. "We think there is a substantial proportion of these people, who may still be entitled to refunds, interest and in some cases compensation for distress and inconvenience," he said. The claims would be based on the fact that the debt was issued with a notice based on unlawful ATO averaging data, he said. Gordon Legal is currently considering adding further claims to its lawsuit, including exemplary damages and misfeasance in public office. Whether it adds these claims will depend on what may be revealed in government documents Gordon Legal is fighting to get hold of, relating to what the government, ministers and bureaucrats knew about the scheme's unlawfulness and when. "Claims in exemplary damages are not made lightly as they are intended to punish a wrongdoer for their conduct," Mr. Grech said. "Many group members have told us that they are very concerned to ensure that a clear message is sent to the Commonwealth through the class action that they are entitled to expect their government to act within the law, at all times. "Unfortunately, the Commonwealth's ongoing refusal to recognise their claims for interest and in cases where there is clear evidence of hardship, compensation for the distress caused, has only exacerbated their feeling that the Commonwealth has not learned from the errors it has made in the creation and implementation of the robodebt Scheme." Mr. Jongen said he was unable to comment on matters related to the court case. [GN] CHOBANI LLC: Gaskell Sues Over Coffee Creamer's Deceptive Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- LOUISE GASKELL and JEWEL DEWITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHOBANI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-05199 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of New York General Business Law; negligent misrepresentation; breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; fraud; and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, allege that the Defendant deceptively markets, distributes, and labels the Chobani coffee creamer as a natural and vanilla flavored product. The product's representation is false and misleading because the coffee creamer contains non-vanilla flavors which imitate, resemble and extend vanilla's taste but are not derived from vanilla bean. The Defendant's unlawful practice harmed the Plaintiffs and Class members as they purchased the product at higher prices than it would have in the absence of the misconduct. Had they known the truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it. Chobani, LLC is an American food company specializing in strained yogurt, with a principal place of business in Norwich, New York, Chenango County. [BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Denies Insurance Claims, T & E Chicago Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- T & E CHICAGO LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04001 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and statutory bad faith denial of insurance. According to the complaint, the Defendant denies the Plaintiff's insurance claims under the business interruption coverage based on argument that the Plaintiff's losses are not covered as the presence of the coronavirus, which led to the government's closure orders that prohibited the Plaintiff from operating its businesses, did not constitute a direct physical damage or direct physical loss. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's policy is an all-risk commercial property insurance policy and therefore, it should cover loss of income and necessary extra expenses that insureds incur after their business operations are halted to prevent the spread of COVID-19 pandemic. T & E Chicago LLC is a limited liability company that owns and operates the Navigator Taproom, a tavern located in Chicago, Illinois. The Cincinnati Insurance Company is an insurance company, with its principal place of business located in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 CONSOL ENERGY: Renewed Motion for Class Certification Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as BENNY FITZWATER, CLARENCE BRIGHT, TERRY PRATER, EMMET CASEY, JR., CONNIE Z. GILBERT, ALLAN H. JACK, SR., and ROBERT H. LONG, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CONSOL ENERGY, INC., CONSOLIDATION COAL CO., FOLA COAL CO., LLC, CONSOL OF KENTUCKY, INC., CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO., LLC, and KURT SALVATORI, Case No. 2:16-cv-09849 (S.D. W.Va.), the Hon. Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification of: "all individuals who were participants or surviving beneficiaries covered by the CONSOL Energy Inc. Retiree Health and Welfare Plan, whose benefits were terminated in 2015, and to whom CONSOL did not offer the same transition benefit provided to those participants who joined the Plan on or after September 30, 2014; and 2. directing the Clerk to forward copies of this order to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented parties. The Court said, "Briefing of the Defendants' summary judgment was already completed by the time the renewed motion was fully briefed on June 22, 2020. The July 17, 2020 pretrial conference fast approaches. Granting the renewed motion and reopening discovery would again delay trial, currently set for August 4, 2020, well into the fall and perhaps further. The plaintiffs have not offered new evidence, "materially changed or clarified circumstances," or any other ground on which to reopen the class certification issue and postpone resolution of this case even further. Accordingly, the court finds no basis to grant the plaintiffs' renewed motion." The renewed motion seeks to certify a narrower class purportedly not yet addressed by the court, comprised only of those retirees (i.e., Retiree Welfare Plan participants) for whom the plaintiffs contend that CONSOL denied the new pro-rated cash transition benefit based on "claims experience."[CC] COSITAS RICAS: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- LILIANA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff -against- COSITAS RICAS CORP., and OSCAR FRANCO, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02992 (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendants to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around January 2015 until in or around November 2018. Plaintiff's primary duties were as a counter person and restaurant employee, while performing other miscellaneous duties during her employment period. According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for her hours worked from in or around January 2015 until in or around November 2018, a blatant violation of the minimum wage provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Defendants also did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in federal and state laws. Further, Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA. Cositas Ricas Corp. is a Jackson Heights, New York-based restaurant services provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 IKkew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 COSMETICA INC: Davis Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Lee Davis and all others similarly situated v. COSMETICA INC., a Florida Limited Liability Company, and ADLEY DASILVA, Case No. 9:20-cv-81084-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 8, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff's workweek with the Defendants consisted of a regular workweek for which the Defendants should have paid her at or above the FLSA minimum wage as required, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff was never paid minimum wage for the hours she worked for the Defendants on specific dates and was not paid the hourly amount that the Defendants agreed to pay for her labor and services. Plaintiff Ms. Davis was employed by COSMETICA from October 2018 through March 2020. COSMETICA is a Florida profit corporation, with its principal place located in Lucie, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Lustig, Esq. Robert C. Johnson, Esq. PIKE & LUSTIG, LLP 1209 N. Olive Ave. West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 855-7585 Facsimile: (561) 855-7710 Email: pleadings@pikelustig.com CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Dixon Seeks to Certify Class of Appraisers --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DIMITRI DIXON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD WESTERN, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-05813-JSC, the Plaintiff will asks the Court on August 13, 2020, for an order: 1. granting conditional certification and approving a 90-day opt-in period for the following proposed Collective: "all persons employed by Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. as Appraisers or Senior Appraisers from July 24, 2016 to the close of the opt-in period, who were not 17 paid an hourly wage, or a guaranteed wage free and clear that did not fluctuate due to the quantity or 18 quality of work"; 2. approving the Plaintiff's proposed form of Notice and Consent to Join form and authorizing both forms to be sent by U.S. Mail and email, to all potential Collective Action Members, with identical reminder notices to potential Collective Action Members to issue after the expiration of 30 days and 60 days from the day that the original notice is transmitted to any potential Collective Action member who has not responded; and 3. permitting potential Collective Action Members to file Consent to Join Forms, by mail email, fax, or via website upload, until 90 days after the day the original notice is transmitted to potential Collective Action Members. The Plaintiff Dimitri Dixon, who worked as an Appraiser in California, filed a Class and Collective Action Complaint in California Superior Court on August 14, 2018, alleging that Cushman had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code provisions by misclassifying her and other Appraisers as exempt from overtime and failing to pay them overtime compensation. Cushman & Wakefield provides real estate services. The Company offers agency leasing, asset services, capital markets, and facility services.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura L. Ho, Esq. Beth Holtzman, Esq. GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417 E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com bholtzman@gbdhlegal.com CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Seltz Seeks to Certify FLSA, DCMWA Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as RYAN SELTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC. and CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF WASHINGTON, DC, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-02092-BAH (Filed D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective; 2. conditionally certifying the proposed D.C. Minimum Wage Act collective; 3. tolling the statute of limitations during the pendency of this motion; 4. directing the Defendants to produce a computer-readable list of the names, last known mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers, last known email addresses, dates of work, and work locations for all Collective Members, and the last four digits of the Social Security numbers of those Collective Members whose notices are returned undeliverable; 5. authorizing the issuance of notice to all collective members, as well as two reminder notices during the opt-in period, and the creation of a standalone website; and 6. granting such other, further, or different relief as the Court deems just and proper. Cushman & Wakefield is a global commercial real estate services firm. The company's headquarters is located in Chicago, Illinois.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 200W Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 847-4400 Facsimile: (202) 847-4410 E-mail: sabrahamson@outtengolden.com jms@outtengolden.com daaron@outtengolden.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com CVS HEALTH: Labourers' Pension Appeals Ruling to N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled LABOURERS' PENSION FUND OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN CANADA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION et al., Case No. 651700/2019, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case type is stated as "CD-E Other Commercial." CVS Health Corporation is an American retail pharmacy and health care company headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. The appellate case is captioned as LABOURERS' PENSION FUND OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN CANADA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION et al., Case No. 2020-02890 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: First Judicial Department.[BN] Defendants-Respondents CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, Larry J. Merlo, David M. Denton, and Eva C. Boratto are represented by: Jonathan Daniel Lupkin, Esq. LUPKIN PLLC 80 Broad Street, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 367-2771 Facsimile: (646) 219-4870 E-mail: Jlupkin@lupkinpllc.com DIVERSITY AT WORK: Sutton Seeks Okay of Notice to Delivery Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as Robert Sutton, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. Diversity at Work Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00224-WHR (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order authorizing him to distribute Notice of this Lawsuit to the following similarly situated employees: "all current and former United Courier delivery drivers who worked within the three years prior to the filling of this Class Action Complaint and the date of the Court's Order approving Notice." This is a wage-and-hour action filed on behalf of the hundreds of delivery drivers who work or have worked at United Courier, a company that provides delivery services to government agencies, hospitals, and other businesses in the Midwest. The Plaintiff alleges that all of the delivery drivers at United Courier are subject to the same or similar circumstances: (1) they are misclassified as independent contractors but function as Defendants' employees; (2) they use their own cars for work, and are not reimbursed for the associated costs incurred for Defendants’ benefit; and (3) they are paid a piece-rate but do not receive time-and-a- half overtime pay for hours worked over forty hours in a week. The Plaintiff asserts that these policies result in minimum wage and overtime violations. The Defendant offers mailing and shipping services.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Nathan Spencer, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com DXC TECHNOLOGY: KBC Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 4th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lead Plaintiffs KBC Asset Management NV and Arbejdsmarkedets Tillgspension filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DXC Technology Company, J. Michael Lawrie and Paul N. Saleh, Case No. 1:18-cv-01599, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Act of 1934. The lawsuit is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all persons, who purchased DXC common stock between February 8, 2018, and November 6, 2018, inclusive. The Plaintiff alleges that, during the Class Period, the Defendants misrepresented the Company's financial condition by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company's current financial performance and outlook for fiscal year 2019 in press releases, analyst conference calls and quarterly and fiscal year-end reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The appellate case is captioned as KBC Asset Management NV v. DXC Technology Company, Case No. 20-1718, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening Brief and Appendix is due on August 11, 2020; and -- Response Brief is due on September 10, 2020.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KBC ASSET MANAGEMENT NV and ARBEJDSMARKEDETS TILLGSPENSION are represented by: Aaron Samuel Book, Esq. Steven Tobin Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK, LLP 300 North Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 - and - Nathan D. Finch, Esq. MOTLEY RICE, LLC 401 9th Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 232-5507 E-mail: nfinch@motleyrice.com - and - Gregg S. Levin, Esq. Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq. Erin C. Williams, Esq. MOTLEY RICE, LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 E-mail: glevin@motleyrice.com cmoriarty@motleyrice.com - and - Steven J. Toll, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005-3965 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com Defendants-Appellees DXC TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, J. MICHAEL LAWRIE, and PAUL N. SALEH are represented by: Stephen Paul Barry, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 555 11th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 E-mail: stephen.barry@lw.com EASTERN DISTRIBUTORS: Alcantara Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Staff ---------------------------------------------------------------- NELSON ALCANTARA-TRIGUEROS and WALTER CONTRERAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EASTERN DISTRIBUTORS 1, INC. and EDWARD MARINACCIO, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03038 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated stockers and cleaners appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in workweek, failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment, and also failed to keep accurate payroll records as required by both NYLL and FLSA. Mr. Alcantara-Trigueros was employed by the Defendants as a stocker and cleaner from in or around November 2017 until in or around May 2019. Mr. Contreras was employed by the Defendants as a stocker and cleaner from in or around April 2004 until in or around December 2019. Eastern Distributors 1, Inc. is a distribution service provider with a principal place executive office located at 31-33 N Grand Boulevard, Brentwood, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 EDEN CREAMERY: Kamal Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as YOUSSIF KAMAL, GILLIAN NEELY, RICHARD LICHTEN, SUSAN COX, NICK TOVAR, MICHELE KINMAN, ASHLEY PETEFISH and TERI BROWN, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDEN CREAMERY, LLC, dba HALO TOP CREAMERY, and JUSTIN T. WOOLVERTON, Case No. 3:18-cv-01298-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on October 13, 2020, for an order: 1. certifying state law classes for each state in which a Plaintiff purchased one or more Halo Top ice cream pints, defined as: "all consumers who purchased one or more pint containers of Halo Top ice cream during the relevant period, and were of damaged thereby"; 2. certifying a subclass for each state law class: "all class members above who received less than a full of pint of ice cream"; Excluded from the proposed classes and subclasses are the defendant, its officers, directors and employees, and those who purchased the products for the purpose of resale.; and 3. appointing themselves as class representatives. Eden is an ice cream company and brand sold in the United States, Australia, Mexico, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Taiwan, South Korea, Austria, United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Brown, Esq. Brian J. Ellsworth, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 501- 6550 E-mail: andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com brian@bjellsworth.com ELLIS HOSPITAL: Faces Davella Suit Over Unpaid Meal Breaks ---------------------------------------------------------- DENISE DAVELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELLIS HOSPITAL, INC. d/b/a ELLIS MEDICINE, Defendant, Case 1:20-cv-00726-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y., June 30, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff Davella was employed by the Defendants as nurse. Ellis Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Ellis Medicine offers laboratory services and outpatient blood draw stations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nestico, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200 Charlotte, NC 28210 Telephone: (510) 740-2946 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com ELMIRON: Bronstein Alerts Consumers of Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------- Did you take Elmiron for 6 months or longer for urinary pain from interstitial cystitis and experience maculopathy or any vision loss or eye damage? Investigations have discovered that using Elmiron (pentosan polysulfate sodium) for urinary pain, can cause vision loss or blindness, a degenerative eye disorder, pigmentary maculopathy. In 1985 Elmiron was approved as an "orphan drug", a special status for a drug to treat a rare disease or condition. Elmiron was an approved treatment for interstitial cystitis, a chronic condition that can cause severe bladder and pelvic pain, thought to affect as many as 1 million people (mainly women) in the United States. Studies have found that roughly 25% of long-term Elmiron users may have developed a vision disorder. The disorder might have been diagnosed as macular degeneration or pattern dystrophy, and after further examiniation shown to be ocular damage, which is now linked to long-term use of Elmiron. Patients who have taken Elmiron for an extended period of time may experience pigmentary retinal maculopathy, a degenerative visual disorder with symptoms including: Blurry Vison Night blindness Difficulty reading Dark spots Loss of close vision Visual dimming Blindness Anyone who took Elmiron for over 6 months and developed eye problems, vision loss or ocular damage may be eligible for compensation. The lawsuit claims that Elmiron, manufactured by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, under Johnson & Johnson has known about the research linking Elmiron to vision loss since 2018, but has failed to warn consumers of the dangers. Bronstein Gewirtz And Grossman is working tirelessly to alert consumers and to help consumers find out their rights. If you or a loved one has used Elmiron and have been diagnosed with vision problems, then you may be eligible for compensation. Know your rights! Reach out to Bronstein Gewirtz and Grossman LLC today. For more information, visit: www.bgandg.com/elmiron. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein Tel: 212-697-6484 E-mail: info@bgandg.com [GN] EN ENG'G: McConnell Seeks to Certify Straight Time Workers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SCOTT MCCONNELL and MICHAEL BENNETT, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. EN ENGINEERING, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00153-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of and authorizing them to send notice to: "all ENE hourly employees who were paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek (or, "straight time for overtime") at any time in the past 3 years (the Straight Time Workers); 2. authorizing the Plaintiffs to send notice to the Straight Time Workers via mail, email, and text message, along with an identical reminder notice; 3. authorizing Class Counsel to contact certain Straight Time Workers by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice and Consent forms are returned as undeliverable; 4. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Straight Time Workers to join the case; and 5. directing ENE to produce the contact information for each of the Straight Time Workers within 10 days of the Court's order in a usable electronic format. ENE provides engineering services. The Company offers pipeline, electrical, and energy infrastructure engineering, designing, automation, integration, and consulting services.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com cfitz@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex), Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & G EIST PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: 412 766-1455 Facsimile: 412 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com ENPHASE ENERGY: Block & Leviton Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Block & Leviton LLP, a national securities litigation firm, reminds investors that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders against Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH) and certain of its officers for securities fraud. The lead plaintiff deadline is August 17, 2020. Investors who purchased Enphase Energy shares between February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020 are encouraged to contact the firm for a free case evaluation. On June 17, 2020, Prescience Point Capital Management published a report concerning Enphase Energy, in which Prescience Point wrote that "[a]t least $205.3m of ENPH's reported FY19 US revenue is fabricated, and a significant portion of its international revenue is fabricated as well." Prescience Point further wrote that "Deloitte should launch an in-depth investigation of ENPH's accounting practices," and set a target price of "Delisted" for ENPH. Prescience Point also detailed hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of insider sales in the last few months. On this news, the stock fell approximately 26% from its June 16, 2020 closing price. The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California, alleges that Enphase misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and international, were inflated; (2) the Company engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) the Company's reported base points expansion in gross margins were overstated; and that (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The case is captioned Hurst v. Enphase Energy, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-04036 (N.D. Cal.). If you purchased or acquired shares of Enphase Energy and have questions about your legal rights or possess information relevant to this matter, please contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via email at cases@blockesq.com, or at https://shareholder.law/enph. Block & Leviton LLP -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a firm dedicated to representing investors and maintaining the integrity of the country's financial markets. The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional investors as well as individual investors in securities litigation throughout the United States. The firm's lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for its clients. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. CONTACT: BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St., Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 Email: cases@blockesq.com [GN] ERIC RYAN CORP: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Gorss Motels TCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Gorss Motels, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's Ruling on Motion for Class Certification dated March 28, 2020, Ruling on Motions for Summary Judgment dated May 21, 2020, and Judgment dated May 26, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Eric Ryan Corporation, Case No. 17-cv-126, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Gorss asserts violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. Gorss alleges that Eric Ryan sent unsolicited advertisements to Gorss and members of the proposed class in violation of the TCPA, including three unsolicited facsimiles sent during the time period between March 1, 2013, and December 1, 2013. The appellate case is captioned as Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Eric Ryan Corporation, Case No. 20-1991, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Gorss Motels, Inc., a Connecticut Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com Defendant-Appellee Eric Ryan Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, is represented by: Christopher A. Cafardi, Esq. CAFARDI FERGUSON WYRICK WEIS GABRIEL, LLC 2605 Nicholson Road, Building II Sewickley, PA 15143 Telephone: (412) 515-8900 E-mail: ccafardi@cfwwg.com EXTRA BUTTER: Court Dismisses Calcano ADA Suit ---------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued an Order dismissing the case captioned MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXTRA BUTTER LLC, et al., Defendants. No. 19-CV-9606-LTS-JLC. (S.D.N.Y.) The attorneys for the parties advised the Court in December that this putative class action has been or will be settled. This action is dismissed with prejudice as to the named plaintiff and without prejudice as to all other plaintiffs and without costs to either party, but without prejudice to restoration of the action to the calendar of the undersigned if settlement is not achieved within 30 days of the date of this Order. If a party wishes to reopen this matter or extend the time within which it may be settled, the party must make a letter application before this thirty (30)-day period expires. A full-text copy of the District of Court’s December 19, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vyzklxj from Leagle.com As reported by the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff filed the case Oct. 17, 2019, alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Extra Butter LLC is minimalist boutique featuring on-trend men's & women's streetwear, sneakers & accessories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zare Khorozian, Esq. Zare Khorozian Law, LLC 1047 Anderson Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Phone: (201) 957-7269 Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com FALLS OF EDGEBROOK: Ponce Seeks Proper Pay for Leasing Agents ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA PONCE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff(s), v. FALLS OF EDGEBROOK, LP and RAO J. POLAVARAPU, Defendant(s), Case No. 4:20-cv-02422 (S.D. Tex., July 9, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) individually and on behalf of all current and former employees of Defendants who were paid the same rate of pay for all of the hours they worked during the past three years to recover back wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). Defendants employed Ponce as a leasing agent from approximately February 2019 to May 2020 who was responsible for showing prospective tenants the property and amenities provided. According to the complaint, Defendants violated the FLSA by employing Ponce and other similarly situated employees "for a workweek longer than 40 hours [but refusing to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of [forty] hours . . . at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they were or are] employed." During Ponce's employment with Defendants, the company did not maintain accurate time and pay records for Ponce as required by law. Falls of Edgebrook, LP is a Texas-based apartment complex managed by Rao Polavarapu.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net FANSIDED INC: Misclassifies Site Experts, Carusillo Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON CARUSILLO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. FANSIDED, INC. d/b/a FANSIDED, Case No. 1:20-cv-04766 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2020), seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 arising from the Defendant's misclassification of its site experts. The Plaintiff contends that FanSided knew it was illegal to classify Site Experts as independent contractors and to fail to ensure they were paid at least the minimum wage and overtime required by law. Despite its continuing knowledge of the illegality of its practices, FanSided willfully and continually refused to pay its Site Experts minimum wages and overtime due for hours worked and, thus, a three-year statute of limitations is applicable to Site Experts in this matter, says the complaint. Site Experts' employment with FanSided was in the nature of a permanent relationship, according to the complaint. Site Experts signed and labored under the terms of Expert Agreements and regularly a worked more than 40 hours a week for FanSided. As a matter of economic reality, the Plaintiff and Site Experts were dependent on FanSided for income, and therefore were employees of FanSided. Given the number of hours Site Experts worked for FanSided, the possibility and extent of outside employment was heavily curtailed. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Site Expert from January 2018 through mid-July 2018. He regularly watched Boston Red Sox games, wrote and published in excess of 20 sports articles per week (more during peak times), managed other unpaid writers, edited and approved new writers' articles, monitored search engine optimization data, and managed comment sections on the BoSox Injection website. FanSided maintains hundreds of sports and other special interest websites affiliated with its parent company Minute Media.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Marc L. Gelman, Esq. Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq. JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 351-0613 E-mail: jgoodley@jslex.com mgelman@jslex.com rmccarthy@jslex.com FELLOS NYC CONSTRUCTION: Uzhca Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Eduardo Uzhca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FELLOS NYC CONSTRUCTION CORP., CASTILLO CONTRACTORS INC., and ALFREDO FERNANDO BAQUIAX TACAM, as an individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-03021 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, including the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act, arising out of the Plaintiffs' employment. Although the Plaintiff worked for 66 hours or more hours per week during his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter. FELLOS NYC CONSTRUCTION is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 FELTEX CARPETS: Dying Man Backs Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Rob Stock at Stuff (New Zealand) reports that terminally-ill investor George Payne has put $1,000 towards a class action lawsuit against directors of carpet-maker Feltex, which went bust soon after listing on the NZX sharemarket. The 89-year old from Christchurch, who has cancer, invested $5500 in the $250 million Feltex initial public offering in 2004, but optimism quickly turned to disappointment and the company was put into liquidation in 2006. Payne, who has been given just weeks to live, still feels a lingering sense of injustice 14 years after losing his money, and decided to back the lawsuit even though he will not live to see the outcome. "I felt we were ripped off originally, the directors just escaped, but the participants (shareholders) ended up with shares that were useless," Payne said. "If I wasn't interested in seeing them brought to heel, I wouldn't have put up $1000 in risk capital," he said. The $1000 Payne has committed has gone towards the crowd-funding campaign launched by project investigator and funding manager Tony Gavigan on which the clock is ticking. Feltex investors have until July 13 to raise the $500,000 needed to take their case for compensation against the failed carpet-maker's directors. On July 2, just over $250,000 had been raised. If they didn't raise the money by then the case would be struck out, though Gavigan said that date was being appealed. "We haven't been given a fair timeframe to do this job," Gavigan said. In 2010, five former Feltex directors, including John Hagen, Peter Thomas and Timothy Saunders, were found not guilty of financial reporting charges. In 2010, five former Feltex directors, including John Hagen, Peter Thomas and Timothy Saunders, were found not guilty of financial reporting charges. Feltex listed on the NZX in 2004, with thousands of ordinary investors buying shares at $1.70. But by September 2006, receivers had been called in leaving investors angry, and two years later attempts by investors to seek damages from directors, who had liability insurance, began. There have so far been 38 judgments delivered by the country's higher courts in the battle between investors and directors, the first in 2008 by the High Court in Christchurch. In 2010 five former directors of Feltex--Saunders, Peter Thomas, Peter David Hunter, John Michael Feeney and John Carlaw Hagen were found not guilty of financial reporting charges. In 2018 a ruling by the Supreme Court held Feltex's 2004 prospectus for its initial public offering contained a revenue forecast directors could not reasonably assume would be achieved. But a separate hearing is now required to determine whether there was any liability for Feltex directors at the time of the 2004 share offer, including Timothy Saunders, Samuel Magill, John Feeney, Craig Horrocks, Peter Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers. In a May judgment Justice Robert Dobson at the High Court in Wellington set an end date for investors to prove they had the funding to take the case. Feltex investors invested in 2004, and are still seeking their money back in 2020. The judge said the defendants had indicated they would challenge claims by individual shareholders they would not have invested at all if the untrue statement had been revealed to them at the point in time they committed to the purchase. The judge said the directors also indicated they would argue the untrue statement did not reduce the fair value of Feltex shares, or not to the extent claimed. And should a loss be made out, the defendants would seek exemption from liability on the basis they conducted themselves with reasonable diligence, he said. Payne said he invested in Feltex because of its links to Canterbury, and his impression it was a profitable business. "I thought that the shares would be worth investing in," he said. "I'm only a small shareholder, but money is money." Idle machinery at Feltex Carpets New Zealand Woven Plant at Riccarton. Payne's son George Payne said his father "has an incredible view on fairness and doing the right thing, and sees this as the right thing to do in an unfair situation, and that people need to be held to account". Gavigan was hopeful, if the case was won, investors would get their money back after the payment of the costs of taking the case. "We hope the people who can prove to the court they would have reversed their investment decision will get their money, and we claim interest, which will be the same amount again," Gavigan said. The class action against the Feltex directors was being taken in the name of investor Eric Houghton. Eric Houghton former Feltex Shareholder is leading the investor case against Feltex directors. TIMELINE OF FELTEX COLLAPSE * May-June 2004: Investors buy just over $250 million of Feltex shares at $1.70 each. Seller of the shares, Credit Suisse is alleged to have made $182m profit. * April 2005: Feltex lowers its profit forecasts. * Later 2005: Profit forcast lowered further to about half of what was stated in the prospectus. * October 2005: Feltex announces a profit of $11.8m compared with $25.8m in prospectus. * March 2006: Shares had fallen to 60c each. * September 2006: Receivers appointed. * December 2006: Feltex in liquidation. [GN] FLIGHT SERVICES: Certification of Managers Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MARIAM FLORES-LITMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FLIGHT SERVICES & SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00346-FB-RBF (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "all salaried Operations Managers employed by Defendant since March 19, 2017." 2. granting approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact information The Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. As salaried Operations Managers of the Defendant, the Plaintiff and putative class members were uniformly subject to the same policies of Defendant that led to the alleged violations of the FLSA, says the complaint. Flight Services is an aviation service company headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, founded in 2000.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: H. Michael Bush, Esq. Sarah Voorhies Myers, Esq. CHAFFE MCCALL, LLP 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2300 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 585-7000 E-mail: bush@chaffe.com myers@chaffe.com - and - Thomas P. Marotta, Esq. LOPRESTI MARCOVY & MAROTTA, LLP 1468 West Ninth Street, Suite 330 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Telephone: (216) 241-7740 E-mail: tpm@lmm-llp.com FLOWCO PRODUCTION: Keating Seeks to Certify Field Technician Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In class action lawsuit captioned as Dean Keating, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. Flowco Production Solutions, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00122-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of a collective of: "all Field Technicians and/or persons who performed similar duties or services such as Tool Hands (regardless of title) who worked for Defendant at one of their Locations within the last three years who were paid a salary and a day rate, worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks and were not compensated at one and one- half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks"; and 2. granting approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact information, setting forth the Plaintiff's requests related to providing notice to putative Collective Members certified by this Court pursuant to the current Motion. Flowco specializes in the design, installation and optimization of gas lift and plunger lift systems, made in the USA, serving oil and gas basins throughout North America.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. The Law Office of Chris R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 Southlake, TX 76092 Telephone: 817-416-5060 Facsimile: 817-416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com FLUFF N FOLD: Faces Sosa Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- MARTHA ESTELA SOSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLUFF N FOLD LAUNDROMAT LLC, STEVE MENEXAS, and ELAINE MENEXAS, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03053 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated laundry shop employees the required minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to provide notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment, and failing to maintain accurate payroll records. The Plaintiff was employed as a washer, dryer, folder, and counter person at the Defendants' laundry shop in Astoria, New York since June 2013. Fluff N Fold Laundromat LLC is a laundry service provider located at 25-26 30th Avenue Astoria, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Smith Suit over Ferrari Merger Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Forescout Technologies, Inc. continues to defend itself against a putative class action styled Smith v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., related to its Ferrari Group Holdings, L.P. merger, 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 February 6, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Ferrari Group Holdings, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Parent"), and Ferrari Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Advent. Between March 13, 2020 and April 3, 2020, one putative class action, Smith v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00376, and three individual actions, Blackwell v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-02267, Bushansky v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 5:20-cv-01867, and Williams v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-02784 (collectively, the "Complaints") were filed by purported Company stockholders against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors (the "Board"). Smith was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware; Blackwell and Williams were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; and Bushansky was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Complaints generally allege that the Company's preliminary proxy statement contained false or misleading statements regarding the merger in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaints each bring a claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and the members of the Board, and a claim for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the members of the Board as "controlling persons." The actions seek, among other things, to (1) enjoin the defendants from consummating the merger; (2) cause the defendants to disseminate revised disclosures; and (3) rescind the merger or recover damages in the event that the merger is completed. Forescout Technologies, Inc. provides device visibility and control solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and Japan. The company offers its products to various industries, such as government, financial services, healthcare, technology, manufacturing, energy, services, retail, entertainment, and education through distributors and resellers. Forescout Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL BERMAN, STEPHANIE HERNANDEZ, and ERICA RUSSELL, v. FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLC, FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF, LLC, FLUENT, INC., and LEAD SCIENCE, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-01060-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on September 8, 2020, for an order: 1. granting a renewed motion for class certification of three classes of individuals who received calls and texts from defendants Fluent, Inc. and Lead Science, LLC marketing the debt relief services of Freedom Debt Relief, LLC: (a) Cellular Telephone Non-Visitor Class, consisting of people who did not visit one of Fluent's websites but received calls and texts marketing Freedom's services; (b) Cellular Telephone Visitor Class, consisting of people who did visit Fluent's websites before receiving calls and texts marketing Freedom's services; and (c) DNC Non-Visitor Class, consisting of people whose residential numbers are listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and received calls and texts marketing Freedom's services. 2. appointing Plaintiff Berman to represent the Cellular Telephone Non-Visitor Class and DNC Non-Visitor Classes; 3. appointing Plaintiffs Hernandez and Russell to represent the Cellular Telephone Visitor Class. The Court denied Plaintiff Berman's prior motion for class certification because he is not a subject to the affirmative defenses of express consent and mandatory arbitration that Defendants assert against class members who visited Fluent's websites. The Court concluded that Plaintiff Berman was not a typical and adequate representative of those class members, and noted that he had no proposed subclasses or adding a class representative to address this concern. Plaintiff Berman received numerous calls and texts out of the blue, having never visited one of the websites that Fluent uses to amass purported leads to call for businesses like Freedom. The lead lists that Fluent and Drips produced revealed that Plaintiff Berman was one of many people ID whose phone numbers were associated with evidently fake names or addresses.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Amanda M. Steiner, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com jmurray@terrellmarshall.com asteiner@terrellmarshall.com GENOMIC HEALTH: Flannery Sues Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duties ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUZANNE FLANNERY v. GENOMIC HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 2020-0492-JRS (Del. Ch., June 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated former stockholders of Genomic for violation of 8 Del. C. section 203 and breach of fiduciary duties by members of Genomic's board of directors. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties by Genomic's controlling stockholders, and aiding and abetting the Board's breach of fiduciary duties by Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Exact Sciences Corp. and Spring Acquisition Corp. The action arises from the 2019 merger of Genomic and Spring Acquisition, a wholly owned subsidiary of Exact Sciences, whereby Genomic stockholders were supposed to receive consideration valued at $72.00, comprised of $27.50 in cash and fractional Exact Sciences stock valued at $44.50. That already-undervalued transaction was made worse by the Genomic's Board agreement to an unreasonable and uninformed collar on the stock component at a time when Genomic's directors knew Exact Sciences's stock was overvalued, the Plaintiff alleges. Exact Sciences's stock price predictably cratered between the announcement of the Merger and closing. As a result, Genomic's stockholders only received around $65 per share at closing, well below the already-inadequate $72 per share price. On October 4, 2019, the Board filed a proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Among other things, the Proxy allegedly failed to fully and completely disclose: -- advisor conflicts; -- purported verbal agreement on consideration in the midst of negotiations, which supposedly occurred between Popovits and Conroy, who have long known each other; and -- the pretextual reason why Exact Sciences refused to provide its multi-year projections to Genomic, including that Genomic accepted that pretextual reason without any legal advice. The Plaintiff was a Genomic stockholder, and owned Genomic stock at all material times alleged in the Complaint, until her stock was wrongfully taken in the Merger. Defendant Genomic was a global provider of genomic-based diagnostic tests. Genomic was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal headquarters in Redwood City, California. The Defendants include JULIAN C. BAKER, FELIX J. BAKER, FRED E. COHEN, HENRY J. FUCHS, BARRY P. FLANNELLY, GINGER L. GRAHAM, GEOFFREY M. PARKER, KIMBERLY J. POPOVITS, BAKER BROTHERS LIFE SCIENCES, L.P., 14159, L.P., 667, L.P., BAKER BROTHERS INVESTMENTS, L.P., BAKER BROS. INVESTMENTS II, L.P., BAKER/TISCH INVESTMENTS, L.P., EXACT SCIENCES CORP., SPRING ACQUISITION CORP., and GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel L. Closic, Esq. Eric J. Juray, Esq. PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 888-6500 - and - Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq. ROBBINS LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 GEO GROUP: Concealed COVID-19 Failures to Investors, Hartel Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVE HARTEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GEO GROUP, INC.; GEORGE C. ZOLEY; and BRIAN R. EVANS, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-81063 (S.D. Fla., July 7, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants deceive the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired GEO Group securities between February 27, 2020 and June 16, 2020 by releasing materially false and misleading statements regarding GEO Group's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose the following material facts: (i) GEO Group maintained woefully ineffective COVID-19 response procedures; (ii) those inadequate procedures subjected residents of the company's halfway houses to significant health risks; and (iii) accordingly, the company was vulnerable to significant financial and/or reputational harm. The Defendants intentionally concealed the material facts to attract investors and trade GEO securities at a high price during the Class period. The market price of the company's securities declined sharply following the public disclosure of facts about the company's failure to take appropriate measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' misleading statements and omissions because they acquired the company's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class period. Had they known the truth, they would not have purchased or otherwise acquired said securities, or would not have purchased or otherwise acquired them at the inflated prices that were paid. The GEO Group, Inc. is an integrated equity real estate investment trust company, with principal executive offices located at 4955 Technology Way, Boca Raton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com - and – James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jlopiano@pomlaw.com - and – Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com GLAD PRODUCTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Buyers, Sosa Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, YONY SOSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE GLAD PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05222 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.glad.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. These access barriers include, but not limited to, the following: (1) text cannot be resized without assistive technology up to 200% without losing content or functionality; (2) web pages do not have titles that describe the topic or purpose; (3) one or more keyboard operable user interface lacks a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is discernible; (4) the default human language of each web page cannot be programmatically determined; and (5) change in the setting of a user interface component may automatically cause a change of context where the user has not been advised before using the component. The Defendant also failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to correct the access barriers and provide equal access to its products and services through the website. The Defendant's inactions discriminate and will continue to discriminate consumers on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the website. The Glad Products Company is an online retail store operator with principal executive office located at 1221 Broadway, Oakland, California. [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 GLOBAL TRAVEL: Wrobel Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JULIE WROBEL FOR HERSELF AND HER SON E. W., LISA SIDES FOR HERSELF AND HER DAUGHTER K. S., ERIN CLAUNCH AND JACKIE CLAUNCH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DAUGHTER K. C., TRACY SMITH FOR HERSELF AND HER SON C. S., JENNIFER WERSLAND FOR HERSELF AND HER SON K. W., JULIE SWENSON FOR HERSELF AND HER DAUGHTER K. S., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. GLOBAL TRAVEL ALLIANCE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00053-SPW-TJC (D. Mont.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Defendant offers educational travel.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Morrison, Esq. MORRISON SHERWOOD WILSON DEOLA, PLLP 401 North Last Chance Gulch P.O. Box 557 Helena, MT 59624 Telephone: (406) 442-3261 E-mail: john@mswdlaw.com - and - John Heenan, Esq. Joe Cook, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 839-9091 E-mail: john@lawmontana.com joe@lawmontana.com HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Indian American PA to Get $500K in Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- India West reports that on June 30, 2020, a class of women in the entertainment industry who sued Harvey Weinstein over allegations of sexual harassment, sexual abuse and rape announced they have reached an $18.875 million settlement with Harvey Weinstein, The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC, and certain former officers, directors and employees of TWC. Among the women who have accused the media mogul of sexual harassment and assault is Sandeep Rehal, a California-based former Indian American personal assistant to Weinstein, who, according to The Hollywood Reporter, will receive $500,000. The publication also reported that "separately, $5.4 million will be paid to an individual plaintiffs' settlement fund, which goes to a group of women who negotiated a separate settlement." Those women include Rehal and actress Paz de la Huerta. The $18.875 million settlement resolves a 2017 class action lawsuit which alleged that "Harvey Weinstein was a serial sexual harasser and abuser, and the various companies with which he was affiliated, as well as certain respective current and former officers and directors, failed to stop or prevent his actions in violation of federal and state law," according to a press release issued by the attorneys at FeganScott and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. Supporting the settlement is the New York State Office of the Attorney General, which sued Weinstein in February 2018 for creating a hostile work environment at TWC, and sued TWC for failing to stop the unwanted sexual conduct in violation of state and city human rights laws. Notably, the settlement ensures the survivors will be compensated even though TWC and certain affiliates filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in March 2018. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York will decide whether to grant preliminary approval of the settlement. Rehal, who worked as the film producer's assistant from February 2013 to February 2015, sued him in 2018, stating that she suffers from "severe emotional distress" because of "incessant sexual harassment" she endured working as his assistant. According to the lawsuit, she said she maintained Weinstein's list of contacts and had to use an asterisk to identify his sexual partners. [GN] HARVEY WEINSTEIN: To Pay $19MM Settlement to Dozens of Women ------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan J. Farrick of Legal Reader reports that Harvey Weinstein has reached a $19 million settlement with dozens of women who accuse the disgraced filmmaker of sexual misconduct. According to CBS News, the tentative settlement was announced Tuesday by New York Attorney General Letitia James and Chicago-based attorney Elizabeth A. Fagan. In total, Weinstein and his former studio's board would pay approximately $18.8 million, with settlement scaled in accordance with impact. Individual payments would range from $7,500 to $750,000. "After all the harassment, threats, and discrimination, these survivors are finally receiving some semblance of justice," James said in a statement. "Women who were forced to sign confidentiality agreements will also be freed from those clauses and finally be able to speak." Accusations against Weinstein, says CBS, began surfacing in 2017. Numerous A-list celebrities accused Weinstein of sexually abusing-or attempting to sexually abuse them-in exchange for high-profile roles. Weinstein threatened women, especially those who were just beginning their careers as actresses or models, who did not comply with his demands with professional ruin. Salma Hayek-who was not a party to either class action--says she repeatedly rejected Weinstein's advances. The producer had, allegedly, asked Hayek for a variety of sexual favors, from showering with him to allowing him to perform oral sex on her. While Hayek was established enough to rebuff Weinstein, he still attempted to take revenge by interfering with her production of the biographical film Frida. Hayek, writing in another New York Times article, said that Weinstein eventually coerced her into doing a nude scene she had not wanted to perform. Numerous Hollywood actresses, including Salma Hayek, have accused Weinstein of using his power within the film industry to coerce sexual favors. Hayek claims she was forced to partake in a nude scene in the movie 'Frida' after rejecting Weinstein's advances. Many of Weinstein's other victims, who were not named in the class action, reported similarly coercive misconduct. But for actresses just beginning their careers, Weinstein's promises of reward--and threats of retaliation--were impossible to ignore. The eventual backlash against Weinstein gave rise to the #MeToo movement, in which women from all walks of life shared stories of endured sexual assault, harassment, and misconduct on social media. Caitlan Dulany, one of the named plaintiffs, told James' office that it is important to hold Weinstein accountable. "We fought a long and grueling battle in the courtroom," Dulany said. "Harvey avoided accountability for decades, and it was a powerful moment for us to band together and demand justice." However, attorneys for other Weinstein victims say that the settlement amount is absurdly small, given the scope of Weinstein's crimes. "We are completely astounded that the Attorney General is taking a victory lap for this unfair and inequitable proposal, and on behalf of our clients, we will be vigorously objecting in court," said attorneys Douglas H. Wigdor and Kevin Mintzer. "The proposed settlement is a complete sellout of the Weinstein survivors and we are surprised that the attorney general could somehow boast about a proposal that fails on so many different levels," they added. "While we do not begrudge any survivor who truly wants to participate in this deal, as we understand the proposed agreement, it is deeply unfair for many reasons." [GN] HEALTHCARE VENTURES: Shiflet Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shiflet, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. HEALTHCARE VENTURES OF OHIO, LLC; PEREGRINE HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; PEREGRINE HEALTH SERVICES OF COLUMBUS, LLC; PEREGRINE HEALTH SERVICES OF CINCINNATI, LLC; PEREGRINE HEALTH SERVICES OF EDGERTON, LLC; Case No. 2:20-cv-03428-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, July 7, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act for the Defendants' failure to pay their employees proper wages, including overtime wages. The Defendants promised the Plaintiff a retention bonus contingent upon the employees working certain lengths of time. The Plaintiff received the $1,000.00 bonus; however, the Defendants did not include this bonus when calculating the Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for the purposes of calculating the proper overtime rate of pay, according to the complaint. As a result, the Defendants failed to properly pay the Plaintiff overtime at one and a half times her regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week. The Plaintiff was a Registered Nurse ("RN") primarily at the Defendants' facility located in Dublin, Ohio, called The Convalarium. HVO provides transitional care, rehabilitation therapy, assisted living, long-term nursing, and Alzheimer's care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com HERTZ CORP: Denicolo Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as RONALD G. DENICOLO, JR., and MICHAEL G. FOX, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION and VIKING CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a VIKING BILLING SERVICE, Case No. 4:19-cv-00210-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying this action as a class action for their claims against Viking Client as follows: The "30-Day Class" (Class Representative—Plaintiff DeNicolo): "all individuals who received letters from Viking asserting claims for purported damage to cars rented from Hertz, Dollar or Thrifty for the first time more than 30 days after the date of the purported damage" With the following subclasses: a) The "30-Day Illinois Subclass: "all Illinois residents who received letters from Viking asserting claims for purported damage to cars rented from Hertz, Dollar or Thrifty for the first time more than 30 days after the date of the purported damage. Any individual who previously reached an agreement with Hertz, Dollar or Thrifty regarding the cost and liability of damage, or had those issues determined by law, is excluded from the class"; and b) The "30-Day California Subclass: "all individuals who rented a car in California and who received letters from Viking asserting claims for purported damage to cars rented from Hertz, Dollar or Thrifty for the first time more than 30 days after the date of the purported damage"; and The "California Class (Class Representative-Plaintiff Fox): "all California residents who received letters from Viking asserting claims for purported damage to cars rented from Hertz, Dollar or Thrifty." Excluded from the 30-Day Class and subclasses, and the California Class are Viking; the officers, directors and employees of Viking; any entity in which Viking has a controlling interest; the affiliates, legal representatives, attorneys, heirs, and assigns of Viking; any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staffs. The Hertz Corporation, a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida, that operates 10,200 corporate and franchisee locations internationally. Viking Client Services is a national provider of electronic payment solutions, customer care, billing and collection and recovery services.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lori E. Andrus, Esq. Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. Leland H. Belew, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com jennie@andrusanderson.com leland@andrusanderson.com - and - Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. Christopher M. Hack, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 Facsimile: (312) 739-1098 E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com chris@krislovlaw.com HOLLAND ACQUISITIONS: Tice Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Tice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOLLAND ACQUISITIONS, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-02389 (S.D. Tex., July 7, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the other workers like him regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week, according to the complaint. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant paid these workers a daily rate with no overtime pay. Plaintiff Tice worked for Holland from April 2016 until March 2018 as a Landman in Houston, Texas. Holland Acquisitions, Inc., is a land services company focused on providing right-of-way services to the oil and gas, power generation, telecommunications and transportation sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com cfitz@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com HORIZONS ETFS: Court of Appeal Overturns Decision ------------------------------------------------- The Lawyer's Daily reports that in Wright v. Horizons ETFS Management (Canada) Inc. 2020 ONCA 337, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the motion judge in Wright v. Horizons ETFS Management (Canada) Inc. 2019 ONSC 3827. [GN] HUGHES, AR: Court Declines to Conditionally Certify Collective -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT SMART, TERRY ROSS RIGGS, and JOHNATHAN JACKSON, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CITY OF HUGHES, ARKANSAS ,Case No. 2:19-cv-00047-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Kristine G. Baker entered an order: 1. denying, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, for approval and distribution of notice, and for disclosure of contact information; 2. directing the Plaintiffs to may, but need not, file a motion for conditional certification of a narrower class within 30 days from the entry of this Order; 3. directing the parties to confer and file a joint proposed amended scheduling order within 45 days from the entry of this Order; however, if the plaintiffs renew their request for conditional certification, the parties may request that the Court not enter an amended final scheduling order until after it has ruled on any such request. The Court said, "the affidavits from a water department employee and a police department employee are not sufficient to show that all full-time, hourly-paid employees of defendant are similarly situated. Thus, even under the lenient standard of the notice stage, plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are similarly situated to the potential collective action members. Accordingly, the Court declines to certify conditionally a collective action. On April 22, 2019, Mr. Smart filed a putative class and collective action against his former employer, the City of Hughes, Arkansas, alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Hughes is a city in St. Francis County, Arkansas. The population was 1,441 at the 2010 census, a decline from 1,867 in 2000.[CC] IDEANOMICS INC: Still Faces Miranda Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Ideanomics, Inc. is still facing the purported class action styled, Jose Pinto Claro Da Fonseca Miranda v. Ideanomics, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On July 19, 2019, the purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. Ideanomics said, "While the Company believes that the Class Action is without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself against these claims, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the lawsuits. The Company cannot currently estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, that it may experience in connection with these litigations." Ideanomics, Inc. operates as a financial technology and asset digitization services company. The Company was formerly known as Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc. Ideanomics, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in New York, New York. INMAR INC: Mr. Dee's Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MR. DEE'S INC., RETAIL MARKETING SERVICES, INC., and CONNECTICUT FOOD ASSOCIATION, v. INMAR, INC., CAROLINA MANUFACTURER'S SERVICES, INC., CAROLINA COUPON CLEARING, INC. and CAROLINA SERVICES, Case No. 1:19-cv-141-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying two classes: (a) a class of manufacturers that paid the Defendants or IOS for coupon processing services; and (b) a class of retailers that paid Defendants or IOS for coupon processing services. 2. appointing their counsel, Kotchen & Low LLP and Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, as class counsel.[CC] This case involves a conspiracy to allocate customers and markets and to fix prices between Defendants -- Inmar, Inc., Carolina Services, and Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. -- and Defendants' principal competitor, International Outsourcing Services. Inmar develops technology and data analytics services. The Company offers digital promotions, analytics, rebates, trade promotions, return product, market actions, financial, and logistics management.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq. Lindsey Grunert, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 471-1995 E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com dkotchen@kotchen.com lgrunert@kotchen.com - and - Kearns Davis, Esq. Matthew B. Tynan, Esq. BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD LLP 230 North Elm Street 2000 Renaissance Plaza Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 373-8850 Facsimile: (336) 378-1001 E-mail: kdavis@brookspierce.com mtynan@brookspierce.com INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Founder Agrees to Settlement in Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Heather van Blokland of KJZZ.org reports that the founder of opioid-maker Insys Therapeutics has agreed to a settlement to resolve allegations he helped conceal from investors a scheme to bribe doctors and defraud insurance companies to overprescribe the company's signature drug, Subsys. John Kapoor is the drugmaker's former chairman and onetime chief executive. In papers filed in federal court in Phoenix, the settlement resolves securities fraud class action claims against him and will be at least $700,000 and up to $10 million. It comes days after the company's former CEO, Michael Babich, settled with the Arizona Attorney General's Office for $2 million for his part in the related state case. Subsys is a spray form of fentanyl, a powerful opioid several times more powerful than morphine and was FDA-approved only for cancer patients with extreme cases of breakthrough pain. Insys and its executives were accused of working with doctors to submit falsified patient records to say the patients had cancer when they did not and to prescribe additional doses to charge more fees for the drug. Earlier this year, Babich was sentenced to two and a half years in federal prison. The company's founder, John Kapoor, was sentenced to 66 months, also in the federal case. The Arizona case is still ongoing. "Insys and their executives must be held accountable for engaging in unethical and illegal behavior that helped fuel the opioid crisis in Arizona," said Brnovich in a prepared statement last week. The Attorney General's Office said it is still pursuing claims against other executives and some Arizona doctors accused in the scheme. Brnovich has two ongoing civil cases against Insys, its former executives, and Arizona doctors accused of engaging in the fraudulent scheme. [GN] INTERSECT ENT: Yaron Class Action in California Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Intersect ENT, Inc. continues to defend itself in a putative class action suit styled, Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. In May 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company, Avi Yaron, filed the putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:19-cv-02647, against the Company and certain individual officers and directors alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual officers made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's business and seeks unspecified damages and attorney's fees. The Court has appointed the lead plaintiff and has set a schedule for initial motions and pleadings. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Intersect ENT said, "As of March 31, 2020, the Company has not recorded a contingent liability associated with this lawsuit, as the Company has not determined that a loss is probable. In addition, any possible loss or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time." Intersect ENT, Inc., incorporated on October 6, 2003, is a commercial-stage drug-device company. The Company develops drugs for patients with ear, nose and throat (ENT) conditions. The company is based in Menlo Park, California. ISLANDWIDE SEAMLESS: Calderon Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Laborers ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, SERGIO CALDERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ISLANDWIDE SEAMLESS GUTTER & LEADER SYSTEMS, INC. and JEFFREY SILVERMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03029 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated laborers the required minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment, and failure to keep accurate payroll records as required by both NYLL and FLSA. Mr. Calderon was employed by the Defendants as a laborer at 160 W Old Country Rd. Unit 5, Hicksville, New York from in or around March 2010 until in or around December 2019. Islandwide Seamless Gutter & Leader Systems, Inc. is a roofing installation and gutter cleaning service provider located at 160 W Old Country Rd. Unit 5, Hicksville, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 JACK'S EGGS: Reynoso Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Reynoso and Luis Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JACK'S EGGS AND OTHER INGREDIENTS LLC (D/B/A JACK'S EGG FARM), JACK NEUSTADT, and MORDECAI NEUSTADT, Case No. 1:20-cv-03010 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiffs 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. The Plaintiffs were employed as a truck driver and driver's assistant at the Defendants' distribution center. The Defendants own, operate, or control a food products supplier, located in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Jack's Egg Farm."[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 JACKSON HEWITT: Mardis, et al. Seek to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as WANDA MARDIS, et. al., v. JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE INC., et. al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02115-JMV-JAD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. is the second-largest tax-preparation service in the United States; responsible for preparing over 2 million federal, state, and local income-tax returns each year.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 - and - Robert W. "Joe" Bishop, Esq. John S. Friend, Esq. BISHOP FRIEND SMITH, PSC 6520 Glenridge Park Place, Suite 6 Louisville, KY 40222 Telephone: (502) 425-2600 - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. Caroline Taylor, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 518 Monroe Street Nashville, TN 37208 Telephone: (615) 921-6500 - and - Robert Ahoodt, Esq. Bradley Keith King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 - and - Jesse Wing, Esq. Jeffrey Taren, Esq. MAC DONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 1500 Hoge Building, 705 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-1604 JENNIFER SHAFFER: Court Denies Class Certification in Brown Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned KEITH A. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. JENNIFER SHAFFER, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:18-cv-00470-AWI-JDP. (E.D. Cal.) Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and for appointed counsel. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Because he is proceeding pro se, the Court said plaintiff is not entitled to represent a class. According to Magistrate Judge Jeremy Peterson, the court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel are present here. At this stage in the proceedings, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and the issues covered in his complaint do not appear unusually complex. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. The court may revisit this issue at a later stage of the proceedings if the interests of justice so require. On May 13, 2019, the court screened plaintiff's first amended complaint and recommended the dismissal of certain claims and defendants. On May 13, plaintiff filed objections, focusing in particular on his claims against defendant Brynulfsen. While the May 13 recommendation has not been formally adopted by the court, the court noted that adoption would not prevent plaintiff from filing a second amended complaint. Thus, should plaintiff wish to make out his allegations against defendant Brynulfsen in more detail, he may wish to consider filing a second amended complaint that does so. Filing a second amended complaint would allow plaintiff's case to continue without further delay. Plaintiff is ordered to notify the court whether he intends to file a second amended complaint by August 2. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 2, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/uVp8jE from Leagle.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: $2MM Attorney’s Fees on Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a Final Settlement Order and Judgment in the case captioned RONY ELKIES, DANIELLE ALFANDARY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON SERVICES, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendants. Case No. CV 17-7320-GW-JEMx. (C.D. Cal.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Court hereby certifies the following Class: All individuals in the United States who purchased Infants' Tylenol for personal or household use since October 3, 2014 until January 6, 2020. (the date notice of this Settlement to the Class was first published). Specifically excluded from the Class are (a) Defendants, (b) the officers, directors, or employees of Defendants and their immediate family, (c) any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, (d) any affiliate, legal representative, heir, or assign of Defendants, (e) all federal court judges who have presided over this Action and their immediate family; (f) all persons who have submitted a valid request for exclusion from the Class and (g) those who purchased the Challenged Product for the purpose of resale or for use in a business setting. The Class meets all of the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) for certification of the class claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint, including: (a) numerosity (b) commonality (c) typicality (d) adequacy of the class representative and Class Counsel (e) predominance of common questions of fact and law among the Class for purposes of settlement and (f) superiority. Plaintiff Elkies is entitled to a service award of $4,000. Plaintiff Alfandary is entitled to a service award of $4,000. Class Counsel is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, which the Court finds to be $2,083,950, and expenses in the amount of $357,917. Claims administrator Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC is entitled to $516,000 for settlement administration costs. A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya8se9p2 from Leagle.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hall Files Motion for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as FRANK HALL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01833-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff Frank Hall asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying this matter as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3); 2. appointing Lead Plaintiff San Diego County Employees Retirement Association's as Class Representative; and 3. appointig Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation founded in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceutical, and consumer packaged goods.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: 973 994-1700 Facsimile: 973 994-1744 - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Arthur C. Leahy, Esq. Robert R. Henssler Jr., Esq. Nathan R. Lindell, Esq. Laura M. Andracchio, Esq. Hillary B. Stakem, Esq. Matthew J. Balotta, Esq. Alexander Mendoza, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619 231-1058 Facsimile: 619 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com artl@rgrdlaw.com bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com nlindell@rgrdlaw.com landracchio@rgrdlaw.com hstakem@rgrdlaw.com mbalotta@rgrdlaw.com amendoza@rgrdlaw.com JOSE PEPPER'S: Underpays Servers, Florece Claims ------------------------------------------------ KIRA FLORECE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOSE PEPPER'S RESTAURANTS, LLC and EDWARD J. GIESELMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02339 (D. Kansas, July 7, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly non-exempt server from April 2019 through February 2020 at Defendants' Belton, Missouri location. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated servers routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. But, Defendant did not compensate them proper minimum wage and overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 each workweek pursuant to the FLSA. Edward J. Gieselman wholly owns the four LLC restaurants in Missouri, controls work schedules and/or conditions of employment, and determines rates and methods of pay. Jose Pepper's Restaurants, LLC owns and operates nine restaurants in Kansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DONELON, P.C. 420 Nicholas Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 221-7100 Fax: (816) 709-1044 Email: Brendan@donelonpc.com - and – Erin D. Lawrence, Esq. Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. BOULWARE LAW LLC 1600 Genessee, Suite 416 Kansas City, MO 64102 Tel: (816) 492-2826 Emails: erin@boulware-law.com Brandon@boulware-law.com KANSAS STATE UNIV: Plank et al. Seek Tuition Fee Refund ------------------------------------------------------- NOAH PLANK and JOHN GARFOLO, on behalf of themselves and other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY; KANSAS BOARD OF REGENTS; and other affiliated entities and individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02335-KHV-JPO (D. Kan., July 6, 2020) is a class action brought on behalf of named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester at Kansas State University, after Defendants failed to offer any refund of the tuition and fees that Plaintiffs and the Class paid following closures of facilities due to COVID-19. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs did not receive the benefit and services that they bargained for when they provided payment for tuition and fees as a result of Defendants' response to COVID-19. On or around March 16, 2020, Kansas State University canceled all in-person education and in-person educational services, then transitioned to complete online education. Defendants have failed to uphold their end of the contract to provide in-person educational services, experiences, and opportunities based on these closures. Plaintiffs were enrolled as full-time undergraduate students at Kansas State University during the Spring 2020 semester. Kansas State University is a public research university with its main campus in Manhattan, Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher M. McHugh, Esq. Christopher M. Joseph, Esq. Andrew J. Goodwin, Esq. JOSEPH, HOLLANDER & CRAFT LLC 926 Cherry St., Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 297-0800 Facsimile: (816) 787-1379 E-mail: cmchugh@josephhollander.com cjoseph@josephhollander.com agoodwin@josephhollander.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Adam Gonnelli, Esq. Jeremy Francis, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (854) 705-9460 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrownl@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com KINGOLD JEWELRY: Chitturi Sues over 24% Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------- RAJANI CHITTURI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KINGOLD JEWELRY, INC.; ZHIHONG JIA; and BIN LIU, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-02886 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Kingold securities between March 15, 2018 and June 28, 2020, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the statements contained in the annual report filed on March 15, 2018 on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 with the SEC (the "2017 10-K"), and the annual report filed on April 2, 2019 on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 with the SEC (the "2018 10-K") were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. The Defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose that: (1) Kingold used fake gold as collateral to fraudulently secure loans; (2) consequently, the Company would face creditor lawsuits and be delisted from the Shanghai Gold Exchange; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On June 29, 2020, before the market opened, Caixin Global published an article entitled "Cover Story: The Mystery of $2 Billion of Loans Backed by Fake Gold." The article stated, among other things, that Kingold had used gold bars that were actually gilded copper as collateral in loans and was now facing lawsuits as a result, and that Kingold had been delisted from the Shanhai Gold Exchange. On this news, shares of Kingold stock fell $0.27 per share or over 24% to close at $0.85 per share on June 29, 2020. Kingold Jewelry Inc., through its subsidiary, designs and manufactures 24K gold jewelry and household ornaments. The Company's 24k gold jewelry products are sold by weight. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com KINGOLD JEWELRY: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Kingold Jewelry, Inc. (NASDAQ:KGJI) for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 15, 2018 and June 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before August 31, 2020. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://schallfirm.com/join-action-form/?slug=kingold-jewelry-inc&id=2524 We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Kingold fraudulently secured loans in a scheme utilizing fake gold. As a result, the Company faces creditor lawsuits and was delisted by the Shanghai Gold Exchange. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Kingold, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contact: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., http://www.schallfirm.com/ Office: 310-301-3335 Cell: 424-303-1964 E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN] KINGOLD JEWELRY: Tysor Sues Over Decline in Value of Securities --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Oren Tysor, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. KINGOLD JEWELRY, INC., ZHIHONG JIA, and BIN LIU, Case No. 1:20-cv-03050 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to their wrongful acts and omissions that resulted in the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired Kingold securities between March 15, 2018, and June 28, 2020, inclusive. On March 15, 2018, Kingold filed its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 with the SEC (the "2017 10-K"). The 2017 10-K was signed by the Individual Defendants. The 2017 10-K contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") by the Individual Defendants attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. On April 2, 2019, Kingold filed its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 with the SEC (the "2018 10-K"). The 2018 10-K was signed by the Individual Defendants. The 2018 10-K contained signed SOX certifications by the Individual Defendants attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. The Plaintiff alleges that the statements contained were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Kingold used fake gold as collateral to fraudulently secure loans; (ii) consequently, the Company would face creditor lawsuits and be delisted from the Shanghai Gold Exchange; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On June 29, 2020, before the market opened, Caixin Global published an article entitled "Cover Story: The Mystery of $2 Billion of Loans Backed by Fake Gold." The article stated, among other things, that Kingold had used gold bars that were actually gilded copper as collateral in loans and was now facing lawsuits as a result, and that Kingold had been delisted from the Shanhai Gold Exchange. On this news, shares of Kingold stock fell $0.27 per share, or over 24%, to close at $0.85 per share on June 29, 2020. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired Kingold securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Kingold purports to design, manufacture, and sell 24-karat gold jewelry and Chinese ornaments in the People's Republic of China.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com KROGER CO: Misclassifies Assistant Managers, Powell Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER COMPANY, and DILLON COMPANIES, LLC a/k/a KING SOOPERS, INC. d/b/a KING SOOPERS/CITY MARKET, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01983 (D. Colo., July 7, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Assistant Store Manager (ASM) from approximately June 206 to December 2019. According to the complaint, Defendant classified Plaintiff and other similarly situated ASMs as exempt from overtime. Thus, despite working 50-60 hours per week, Defendant denied them overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked over 40. Dillon Companies LLC a/k/a King Soopers, Inc. d/b/a King Soopers/City Market is a supermarket brand of Kroger in the Rocky Mountains of the United States. The Kroger Company is an American retail company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700 Market St., Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 278-4782 Fax: (215) 278-4807 Email: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com KROGER CO: Mullins Seeks to Certify Assistant Store Managers Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as KEVIN MULLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE KROGER COMPANY; and SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTERS, INC. d/b/a FRY'S FOOD AND DRUG, Case No. 1:19-cv-00964-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional certification and approval to send notice of this lawsuit to all 567 members of the following proposed Assistant Store Managers Collective: "all current and former ASM who work, or worked, for Fry's Food in the United States at any time on or after November 12, 2016, to the present, and who were classified as exempt from overtime compensation"; In support, the Plaintiff states as follows: (1) Seven individuals -- one named Plaintiff and six Opt-In Plaintiffs -- have uniformly alleged that the Defendants failed to pay them and all other similarly-situated ASMs overtime compensation in accordance with the FLSA. (2) Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that they were improperly classified as exempt and denied overtime compensation for all hours worked above 40 in a work week. Kroger Company is an American retail company founded by Bernard Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is the United States' largest supermarket by revenue, and the second-largest general retailer. Smith's is a supermarket chain that was founded in 1911 in Brigham City, Utah by Lorenzo Smith. Now a subsidiary of Kroger, it is a prominent regional supermarket chain operating in Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700 Market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 278-4782 Facsimile: (215) 278-4807 E-mial: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com - and - Bruce Meizlish, Esq. Deborah Grayson, Esq. MEIZLISH & GRAYSON 830 Main Street, Suite 999 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345-4700 Facsimile: (513) 345-4703 E-mail: brucelaw@fuse.net drgrayson@fuse.net L & S TOV: Fails to Pay Required Wages & OT, Delgado Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ YERY JIMENEZ DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L & S TOV DRUGS LLC d/b/a SUPERSCRIPTS PHARMACY and LEV ZAVLYANOV, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03054 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated pharmacy employees the required minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to provide notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment, and failing to maintain accurate payroll records as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed as a pharmacy employee at the Defendants' business location in Richmond Hill, New York from in or around October 2015 until in or around February 2020. L & S Tov Drugs LLC, d/b/a Superscripts Pharmacy, is a retail pharmacy with principal executive office at 13506 Jamaica Avenue Richmond Hill, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 LLR INC: Kilpatrick Townsend Atty. Discusses Ruling in Van Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- James Bogan III, Esq.--jbogan@kilpatricktownsend.com--of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that when a company discovers it has been imposing improper charges, it might proactively seek to remedy the situation by refunding the charges. To avoid litigation, however, the company must consider including interest in those payments. A recent decision of first impression by the Ninth Circuit shows that lost interest in an amount of under $4 is sufficient to confer standing to support a putative class action. In Van v. LLR, Inc., --- F.3d ---, No. 19-35242, 2020 WL 3443930 (9th Cir. June 24, 2020), Katie Van, seeking to represent herself and a putative class of Alaska residents, brought suit against Defendants LLR, Inc. and LuLaRoe, LLC (collectively, "LuLaRoe"), alleging that LuLaRoe illegally charged customers sales taxes even though they lived in jurisdictions that did not require sales taxes to be paid. She alleged that LaLaRoe failed to reimburse Ms. Van and the putative class "for the full amount of their damages," asserting claims for conversion, misappropriation, and for violations of the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. As the result of another lawsuit against LuLaRoe alleging similar claims, LuLaRoe had refunded the amount of charges to affected customers (including Ms. Van). Accordingly, LaLaRoe moved to dismiss, arguing that Ms. Van lacked standing, on the ground that she did not suffer an injury in fact. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. The amount of her refund was not insubstantial--she was refunded a total of $531.25 for improper sales tax charges. But her refund did not include the interest on those improper charges, which amounted to less than four dollars ($3.76). The Ninth Circuit stated: "This case requires us to address whether the temporary deprivation of money gives rise to an injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing. We agree with other circuits that '[t]he inability to have and use money to which a party is entitled is a concrete injury.'" Id. at *1 (quoting MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tenet Fla., Inc., 918 F.3d 1312, 1318 (11th Cir. 2019)). "This is so because '[e]very day that a sum of money is wrongfully withheld, its rightful owner loses the time value of the money.'" Id. (quoting Habitat Educ. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 607 F.3d 453, 457 (7th Cir. 2010)). [GN] LOCAL CANTINA: Smith Seeks Approval of Notice to FLSA Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Kelsey Smith, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. Local Cantina, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03064-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order authorizing her to send a notice of the pendency of this action to her similarly-situated co-workers, informing them of their right to join the action to assert Fair Labor Standards Act claims. Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to notify the following two groups of employees: Pre-May 2020 FLSA Subclass: "all current and former tipped employees employed by the Defendants in the State of Ohio between June 15, 2017 and the date of final judgment in this matter, who worked in Local Cantina locations where tips left on online orders were not distributed in whole or in part to servers and bartenders"; and Post-May 2020 FLSA Subclass: "all current and former tipped employees employed by Defendants in the State of Ohio between May 12, 2020 and the date of final judgment in this matter." This is a wage and hour action on behalf of restaurant workers at Defendants' Local Cantina locations in the Columbus, Ohio area. The Plaintiff and eleven other workers have filed consent-to-join forms with the Court since the filing of the Complaint. The Plaintiff asks the Court to authorize her to provide notice of this action to all other similarly situated workers. At its core, this case is about the Defendants stealing tip money and not paying overtime wages. What makes the case particularly interesting is that some of the tip theft occurs in the context of what appears to be an attempt to manipulate the Paycheck Protection Program, an emergency program meant to keep businesses afloat during the COVID-19 pandemic. Local Cantina is a simple set-up with a condensed menu of tacos, nachos and other Mexican-inspired fare. Its signature is the free self-serve tortilla chips and salsa stationed in each restaurant. The menu has margaritas and mixed drinks as well as a good list of craft beer drafts and limited availability bottles.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phil Krzeski, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Louise M. Roselle, Esq. Nathan J. Spencer, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC www.billerkimble.com 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com lroselle@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com LOGICBIO THERAPEUTICS: Afinowicz Class Suit in New Jersey Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc. continues to face a purported shareholder class action initiated by John R. Afinowicz in New Jersey, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On March 18, 2020, the action styled, John R. Afinowicz v. LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming the Company and certain of the Company's officers as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the Company's Investigational New Drug submission for LB-001 in the Company's public disclosures, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from December 3, 2018 through February 10, 2020. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. The Company believes that this action is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. LogicBio Therapeutics said, "At this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be material to us." LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The Company develops therapeutic gene therapy vectors for the treatment of genetic and infectious diseases. LogicBio Therapeutics serves patients in the State of Massachusetts. The company is based in Cambridge Massachusetts. LOS ANGELES, CA: Brewster Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses --------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as AMYA BREWSTER, ELIAS ARIZMENDI and JULIAN VIGIL, individually and as class representative, et al., v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-02257-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on September 14, 2020, for an order to certify three-related damages Rule 23(b)(3) classes under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and a California Subclass for each under California Civil Code 8 section 52.1. The sole difference between the class definitions is the beginning date of the class period. For the section 1983 claims, the beginning date is November 2, 2012 (two 10 years before the filing of the complaint). For the California claim, the beginning date is May 12, 2014 (six months' before a class 910 claim was filed with the City of Los Angeles). The end date for each is the date LAPD ceased enforcement of section 14602.6. The class definition for each (plus class period dates) is: OPG CLASS: During the class period for seizures and impounds initiated from November 2, 2012, until July 1, 2017, vehicle owners whose vehicles were i) impounded under the authority of LAPD Special Order 7 for a 30 day impound; ii) not released from impound on the first day of the impound; and iii) the owner retrieved their impounded car from an Official Police Garage ("OPG") (tow yard). LO CLASS: During the class period for seizures and impounds initiated from November 2, 2012, until July 1, 2017, vehicle owners whose vehicles were i) impounded under the authority of LAPD Special Order 7 for a 30 day impound; ii) whose vehicles were not released from impound on the first day of the impound; iii) whose vehicles were released to the vehicle's Legal Owner ("LO") who, by operation of law, did not release the vehicle to its owner until after the conclusion of the 30 day impound period; and iv) there exists a Los Angeles City record documenting that the RO paid the City the Cal. Gov't Code section 41612 fee (which preconditions the LO's release of the vehicle to the RO on proof of such payment), or, to the extent such records are unavailable, the vehicle, based on DMV data, remained registered to the Registered Owner ("RO") six months after the impound. LIEN CLASS: During the class period for seizures and impounds initiated from November 2, 2012, until July 1, 2017, vehicle owners whose vehicles were i) impounded under the authority of LAPD Special Order 7 for a 30 day impound; ii) whose vehicles were not released from impound on the first day of the impound; iii) had their impounded car sold at a lien sale; and iv) had a valid current California driver's license at any point between the expiration of the 30 day impound and the lien sale or had an available driver to pick up the vehicle as of or before the lien sale date. The Class Representatives for each are: Julian Vigil (OPG Class); Lamya Brewster (LO Class); and Elias Arizmendi (Lien Class). The Plaintiffs sue over the Los Angeles Police Department's (LAPD) policy of warrantless vehicle impounds for 30 days or more (or lesser periods where vehicles were released earlier). The vehicle impounds were pursuant to LAPD Special Order No. 7, which opted to seize and impound vehicles for 30 days under the authority of Cal. Veh. Code section 14602.6(a)(1)) rather than the alternatively available Cal. Veh. Code secton 22651(p). Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barrett S. Litt, Esq. KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (626) 844-7660 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670 E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com - and - Donald W. Cook, Esq. 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 252-9444 Facsimile: (213) 252-009 E-mail: manncook@earthlink.net - and - Paul Hoffman, Esq. John Clay Washington, Esq. SCHONBRUN , DESIMONE, SEPLOW, HARRIS & HOFFMAN 11543 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 Facsimile: (310) 399-7040 E-mail. hoffpaul@aol.com jwashington@sshhlaw.com LOUIS MILUSNIC: Court Takes Torres Case Under Submission -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as YONNEDIL CARROR TORRES, ET AL., v. LOUIS MILUSNIC, ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order on July 7, 2020, taking the matter under submission. The Court said, "Counsel shall meet and confer and alert the Court if there is anything further for the Court to consider."[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Naeun Rim, Esq. Shoshana Bannett, Esq. Chris Lee, Esq. Oliver Rocos, Esq. Kate Shin, Esq. Jimmy Threatt, Esq. Don Spector, Esq. Bird Marella PC 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 Telephone: 310 201 2100 Facsimile: 310 201 2110 E-mail: nrim@birdmarella.com sbannett@birdmarella.com clee@birdmarella.com orocos@birdmarella.com kshin@birdmarella.com jthreatt@birdmarella.com The Defendants are represented by: Keith Staub, Esq. Paul Bart Green, Esq. Jasmin Yang, Esq. Chung Han, Esq. Damon Thayer, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 300 N Los Angeles St. Ste. 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-7423 Facsimile: (213) 894-7819 LOUISIANA: Court Denies Class Certification Bid as Premature ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as E. B., D. W., and T. R. On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JEFF LANDRY, Attorney General of Louisiana, in his official capacity, DOUG WELBORN, Clerk of the East Baton Rouge Parish Court, in his official capacity, as a representative of defendant class comprised of all Parish clerks in the State of Louisiana, in their official capacities, HILLAR C. MOORE, III , District Attorney of East Baton Rouge Parish, in his official capacity, as a representative of defendant class comprised of all District Attorneys in the State of Louisiana, in their official capacities Case No. 3:19-cv-00862-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge John W. deGravelles entered an order on June 30, 2020, denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a Plaintiff class and subclass; and Plaintiffs' motion to certify two Defendant classes, without prejudice to the Plaintiff's right to re-file the motions after the Court has issued its rulings on the pending motions to dismiss, if necessary. The denied classes are defined as follows: -- Plaintiff class: "all Louisianans who have or will have criminal record events that qualify for expungement and who cannot afford the costs and fees Defendants require for those expungements. -- Plaintiff subclass: "all Louisianans who have or will have non-conviction criminal record events but who cannot obtain a statutory fee waiver to expunge those events because of a prior conviction"; and -- Defendant classes: "all the Clerks of the Parishes of the State of Louisiana who enforce and apply the Louisiana expungement statutes, including collecting expungement fees at filing, without waiving fees for expungement seekers who cannot afford to pay them. Plaintiffs propose Doug Welborn, the Clerk of East Baton Rouge Parish, as the class representative for the class of Clerks"; and "all the District Attorneys of the Parishes of the State of Louisiana who enforce and apply the Louisiana expungement statutes without waiving fees for expungement seekers who cannot afford to pay them. Plaintiffs propose Hillar Moore, the District Attorney of East Baton Rouge Parish, as the class representative for the class of District Attorneys." The Defendants argue that the Court should deny the Class Certification Motions as premature because they were filed prior to a case management order being entered and discovery on class issues being conducted. The Defendants outline that the allegations in the Complaint are not sufficient to conduct the rigorous evaluation necessary to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Defendants further contend that the pending motions to dismiss may impact and/or preclude the Rule 23 analysis. The Plaintiffs respond that early certification is favored in cases where declaratory and injunctive relief is sought against all state government officials and the Court should certify the class as a case management device. The Court does not read Entertainment Software so broadly. The Court notes that Entertainment Software was at a different procedural posture than this case as the Court had already ruled on a motion to dismiss and the parties soon after proceeded to summary judgment. Given the pending motions to dismiss and having considered the record as a whole, the Court concludes that at this stage of the litigation, the Class Certification Motions are premature."[CC] LVNV FUNDING: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In lawsuit re: LVNV Funding LLC Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Litigation, Case No. 2:16-cv-01117-SDW-SCM (D.N.J.), the Parties ask the Court for an order granting final approval of a consolidated class action settlement within proposed settlement classes and related relief. The Plaintiffs are Victoria Lopez, Irina Chernyakhovskaya, Rubier Betancourt, Gladys Espinal, Luisa A. Martinez, Luis A. Rodriguez-Ocasio, Sammy Burgos, Joseph Henriquez, Wendy Lugo, Yensy Orbea, David Uriarte, Jader Ferreira, Francisco Gomez, Robert Little, Yolanda Jackson, and Melizza Delgado, each individually and on behalf of his or her respective class. The Defendants are First National Collection Bureau, Inc.; Allied Interstate LLC, Capital Management Services, L.P.; Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC; Stenger & Stenger, P.C.; Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC; Nations Recovery, Inc.; LVNV Funding LLC; Resurgent Capital Services, L.P.; Alegis Group, LLC; Credit Control, LLC; Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC; J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc.; and Alltran Financial, LP. The consolidated cases are: -- Case No. 2:16-cv-01235-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.) -- Case No. 2:17-cv-00390-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.) -- Case No. 2:17-cv-02833-WJM-MF (D.N.J.) -- Case No. BER-L-003515-17 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div.) -- Case No. 2:17-cv-04567-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.) -- Case No. 3:17-cv-06121-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.) -- Case No. 2:17-cv-06122-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.) -- Case No. 2:17-cv-06204-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.) -- Case No. 2:17-cv-06250-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.) -- Case No. 3:17-cv-06251-MAS-TJB (D.N.J.) -- Case No. 2:17-cv-06278-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.) -- Case No. 2:17-cv-06279-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.) -- Case No. 2:17-cv-07842-JMV-SCM (D.N.J.) -- Case No. 2:17-cv-07891-MCA-SCM (D.N.J.) -- Case No. 2:18-cv-01521-KM-JBC (D.N.J.).[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com M & R SECURITY: Ruiz Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Neyber Ruiz, and other similarly situated individuals v. M & R SECURITY SERVICE, INC., MARIO DE MOYA and ANA RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-22787-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 7, 2020), is brought to recover damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages and retaliatory discharge. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 50-80 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff on average approximately $11 per hour. However, the Defendants did not properly compensate him for hours that he worked in excess of 40 per week. Specifically, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff via payroll checks for 40 hours of work and then paid the Plaintiff via cash or check at the regular rate for hours that the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from late 2016 to June 8, 2020, as a security guard. The Defendant is a security guard agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tanesha Blye, Esq. Aron Smukler, Esq. R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (305) 652-5859 Email: tblye@saenzanderson.com asmukler@saenzanderson.com msaenz@saenzanderson.com M STREET: Conditional Certification of Collective Action Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MATTHEW FENWICK on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees, v. M STREET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; KAYNE PRIME, LLC; MOTO, LLC; 1120, LLC d/b/a SAINT ANEJO; LIME, LLC d/b/a TAVERN MIDTOWN; VIRAGO, LLC; and WK, LLC d/b/a WHISKEY KITCHEN, Case No. 3:20-cv-00403 (M.D. Tenn., Filed May 13, 2020), the Parties ask the Court for an order: a. conditionally certifying a collective action consisting of: "the Defendants' current and former servers and bartenders, as well as all other employees who were paid an hourly rate of less than $7.25, employed at Tavern, Saint Anejo, Kayne Prime, Moto, Virago, and Whiskey Kitchen at any time since May 13, 2017; b. approving the stipulated notice and consent form; c. directing the Defendants to provide to Plaintiff within 14 days an Excel spreadsheet containing the name, last-known mailing address(es), last-known email address(es), telephone numbers, dates of employments, and restaurant(s) and/or bar(s) of employment for each Putative Class member; d. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to distribute Court- authorized notice and consent form to the Putative Class members via U.S. Mail, electronic mail, and text or SMS message at their initial expense (but with the right to seek reimbursement of such expense); e. providing 60 days from the date notice is initially distributed to the Putative Class members to opt into this case; and f. providing a Putative Class member's opt-in date for both tolling of their statute of limitations and for determining whether they have timely opted into this case shall be the earlier of the date the consent form is received by the Plaintiff's counsel or the postmark date, regardless of when the consent form is filed with the Court. The Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a collective action complaint under the FLSA seeking minimum wage and overtime wage compensation for the Defendants' servers and bartenders, as well as all other employees who Defendants paid an hourly wages of less than $7.25, who worked at Tavern, Saint Anejo, Kayne Prime, Moto, Virago, and Whiskey Kitchen, from May 13, 2017, to the present. M Street offers an eclectic portfolio that includes Virago, Moto Cucina + Enoteca, Kayne Prime, Whiskey Kitchen, Saint Anejo and Tavern.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Mandy Strickland Floyd, Esq. Marshall T. Cook, Esq. BONE MCALLESTER NORTON PLLC 100 Bluegrass Commons Blvd, Ste 2370 Bluegrass Commons II Hendersonville, TN 37075 Telephone: (615) 780-7975 Facsimile: (615) 780-7976 E-mail: mcook@bonelaw.com mfloyd@bonelaw.com MARYLAND: Kavanaugh Appeals Decision in Coreas Suit to 4th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant-Respondent Jack Kavanaugh filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Mauricio Coreas v. Jack Kavanaugh, Case No. 8:20-cv-00780-TDC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt. Jack Kavanagh is sued in his official capacity as Director of the Howard County Detention Center in Maryland. Plaintiffs-Petitioners Mauricio Coreas and Angel Guzman Cedillo, currently in immigration detention, filed this action against Respondents seeking their immediate release in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Both are detained by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Maryland, and both have underlying medical conditions that place them at increased risk of serious complications or even death from COVID19. According to Dr. Greifinger, based on reviewing the conditions in their respective facilities, "ICE has failed to adequately comprehend and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic for those detained in ICE custody, including at Worcester and Howard County Detention Centers." The appellate case is captioned as Mauricio Coreas v. Jack Kavanaugh, Case No. 20-6984, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner-Appellee MAURICIO COREAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Adina Bassin Appelbaum, Esq. CAPITAL AREA IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS COALITION 1612 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-0000 Telephone: (202) 899-1412 E-mail: adina@caircoalition.org - and - David Cyrus Fathi, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 915 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-0000 Telephone: (202) 548-6603 E-mail: dfathi@aclu.org - and - Omar C. Jadwat, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2400 E-mail: ojadwat@aclu.org - and - Amber Nasir Qureshi, Esq. Sirine Shebaya, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS' GUILD 2201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 470-2082 - and - Nicholas Taichi Steiner, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MARYLAND 3600 Clipper Mill Road Baltimore, MD 21211-0000 Telephone: (410) 889-8555 E-mail: steiner@aclu-md.org Defendant-Respondent-Appellant JACK KAVANAUGH is represented by: Vickie Elaine LeDuc, Esq. Vincent J. Vaccarella, Esq. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 36 South Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21201 MAUVIEL USA: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mauviel USA, Inc. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mauviel USA, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04793-LGS (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Mauviel is an import and export company based in New Castle, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com MCMC LLC: Amended Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, v. MCMC LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-01901-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith entered an order: 1. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's amended motion to certify the class to the motion being re-filed after the court resolves the anticipated renewed motion for summary judgment; 2. giving the parties until Monday, September 7, 2020 to engage in additional discovery surrounding the issue of consent and any other issues that the parties deem necessary; 3. directing the Defendant to file its motion for summary judgment by October 1, 2020; 4. directing the Plaintiff to file its opposition to the motion for summary judgment by October 8, 2020; and 5. directing the clerk of the court to place this case into civil suspense pending the outcome of the Defendant's anticipated motion for summary judgment. MCMC operates as a managed care services company.[CC] MDL 2244: Boyer v. Depuy Orthopaedics Transferred to N.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2244, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the action styled, BOYER, ET AL. v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-1034, from the Western District of Wisconsin to the Northern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable James E. Kinkeade for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Defendant DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.(n/k/a Medical Device Business Services, Inc.) moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(c) to transfer the Western District of Wisconsin action (Boyer) to the Northern District of Texas for inclusion in MDL No. 2244. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds that this action involves common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2244, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Transfer also is warranted for the reasons set out in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that order, the Panel held that the Northern District of Texas was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions as to alleged injuries from DePuy's Pinnacle Acetabular Cup Systemhip implants. Plaintiff in Boyer claims that he suffered injuries related to the implantation of a DePuy Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip implant, which he alleges caused pain, high blood chromium and cobalt levels, and ultimately required revision surgery. Boyer thus falls within the MDL's ambit. Plaintiffs oppose transfer by emphasizing the distinction that Plaintiff Boyer's Pinnacle hip implant is equipped with a polyethylene liner as opposed to the metal-on-metal Pinnacle hip configurations typical of claims in the MDL. The Panel is not persuaded by these arguments. The Panel declined to limit the MDL to metal-on-metal configurations in the initial transfer order, and subsequently it has transferred other configurations of the Pinnacle hip implant to the MDL proceedings.1Transfer is appropriate because discovery in Boyer likely will relate to, inter alia, the development, approval, manufacture, marketing and performance of the Pinnacle hip device. Moreover, the MDL proceedings are ongoing, as the transferee judge recently issued a case management order that explicitly addresses discovery requirements for "non-metal-on-metal" implants. A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/CQJ3oY MDL 2672: Bid for Mistrial in VW Clean Diesel Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: Bellwether Trial, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a mistrial, and (ii) denied Volkswagen's motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Over the course of six years, Volkswagen sold nearly 500,000 Volkswagen- and Audi-branded TDI clean diesel vehicles, which they marketed as being environmentally friendly, fuel efficient, and high performing. Consumers were unaware, however, that Volkswagen had secretly equipped these vehicles with a defeat device that allowed Volkswagen to evade United States Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board ("CARB") emissions test procedures. Specifically, the defeat device produces regulation-compliant results when it senses the vehicle is undergoing testing, but operates a less effective emissions control system when the vehicle is driven under normal circumstances. It was only by using the defeat device that Volkswagen was able to obtain Certificates of Conformity from EPA and Executive Orders from CARB for its TDI diesel engine vehicles. In reality, these vehicles emit nitrogen oxides (NOx) at a factor of up to 40 times over the permitted limit. The scandal led to numerous government actions and over a thousand civil lawsuits, which were consolidated before the Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The bulk of the civil actions were resolved in two settlements (one concerning 2.0-liter TDI vehicles and another for 3.0-liter TDI vehicles) approved by the Court. The 2.0-Liter Class Settlement offered the owners of TDI diesel vehicles their choice of two remedies. Volkswagen would either buy their cars back at the pre-defeat device value or modify their cars to bring them into compliance with emissions standards approved by EPA and CARB. Lessees similarly had two options. Volkswagen would let them cancel their leases with no penalty or modify their vehicle. Both owners and lessees were entitled to cash restitution on top of their choice of remedy. Former owners who sold their vehicle before June 28, 2016, were entitled to at least $2,550 in cash restitution. The 2.0-Liter Class Settlement received preliminary approval from the Court on July 26, 2016, and final approval on Oct. 25, 2016. The 3.0-Liter Class Settlement offered all owners a free repair, an extended emissions warranty, and cash restitution. It received preliminary approval on Feb. 16, 2017), and final approval on May 17, 2017. Volkswagen has allowed opt-outs to opt back in and participate in the Class Settlements. Both settlements required the class members to release all claims arising from the emissions scandal. The emissions modification and accompanying extended warranty were available to consumers who did not participate in the Class Settlements and did not release their claims. Each of the 10 Plaintiffs in the case owned or leased a Volkswagen or Audi TDI vehicle and opted out of the applicable Class Settlement. They each brought fraud claims and claims under California's Song-Beverly Act. Every Plaintiff but Timothy Riley also brought a claim under the CLRA. Volkswagen moved for summary judgment on just the statutory claims. The Court granted summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' Song-Beverly Act claims and claims for injunctive relief under the CLRA but denied summary judgment on their CLRA damages claims. The parties subsequently agreed that the issue of whether Volkswagen offered an appropriate correction should be tried to the Court at a bench trial. Evidence commenced with the start of the bench trial on Feb. 24, 2020. The jury trial was divided into two phases. The first phase was to determine compensatory damages. During this phase, the Plaintiffs sought damages for economic harm only. Because Volkswagen stipulated that the other elements of the Plaintiffs' claims were satisfied, the only issue during this phase of the trial was whether Plaintiffs had suffered economic harm and, if so, in what amount. Each Plaintiff testified to the dollar amount he, she, or they paid in reliance on Volkswagen's fraud. Volkswagen offered the testimony of an economics professor, Dr. Timothy Bresnahan, who used a market analysis to determine the excess amount each Plaintiff paid for his, her, or their vehicle as a result of Volkswagen's fraud. Dr. Bresnahan testified that Luke and Kathryn Sanwick's economic loss was $3,133, Mr. Riley's economic loss was $1,080, Julia Robertson's economic loss was $952, Scott Salzer's economic loss was $582, and the other Plaintiffs suffered no economic harm. The jury's compensatory damages award adopted Dr. Bresnahan's conclusions. The second phase of the trial was to determine punitive damages. Relevant in the case, the Plaintiffs presented evidence of the egregiousness of Volkswagen's misconduct, including expert testimony that increased NOx emissions increase the risk of harm to human health. The jury awarded the Sanwicks, Mr. Riley, Ms. Robertson, and Mr. Salzer each $25,000 in punitive damages. As an initial matter, the parties dispute the elements of the correction defense. The Plaintiffs maintain that in order to benefit from the correction defense, Volkswagen must show that its CLRA violations were the result of a bona fide error or mistake. Because Volkswagen concedes that its conduct was willful, the existence of a "bona fide error" requirement would be fatal to the correction defense. But Volkswagen does not concede that lack of intent is an element of the defense announced by section 1782(b). The disagreement revolves around the interaction of two statutory provisions: California Civil Code Sections 1782(b) and 1784. The former states that no action for damages may be maintained under Section 1780 if an appropriate correction, repair, replacement or other remedy is given, or agreed to be given within a reasonable time, to the consumer within 30 days after receipt of the notice. Judge Breyer finds that Volkswagen has met its burden of showing that it offered each prevailing Plaintiff an appropriate correction under section 1782(b). The Judge concludes that a settlement offer short of a full refund may constitute an appropriate correction offer, at least in cases like Mr. Salzer and Ms. Robertson's, where the claimant no longer owns the vehicle and therefore cannot have it repaired or return it for a replacement or a refund. The Court's conclusion is supported by the legislative history the Plaintiffs cite, which suggests that an appropriate correction may approximate damages. The Plaintiffs moved for a mistrial during Phase One of the jury trial. At the Court's request, they subsequently filed briefs citing those portions of the record, which ostensibly demonstrate the necessity of a mistrial. The Court has carefully reviewed the Plaintiffs' briefing and the accompanying exhibits. The remarks and interventions the Plaintiffs believe demonstrate actual bias or an appearance of partiality reflect only the Court's obligation to ensure the truthful and orderly presentation of evidence in compliance with the Rules of Evidence and the Court's previous rulings. Because none of the statements, rulings, or purported actions of the Court "projected to the jury an appearance of advocacy or partiality" or demonstrated "actual bias," the motion for a mistrial is denied. Volkswagen argues that the jury's punitive damages award of $25,000 to each of Luke and Kathryn Sanwick, Timothy Riley, Julia Robertson, and Scott Salzer violates constitutional due process. The Judge has considered each of these factors and concludes that the jury's punitive damages award crosses "the line of constitutional impropriety." The Judge concludes that even in light of Volkswagen's egregious misconduct, a punitive damages award four times the compensatory damages award is the most the Constitution will allow. The Judge agrees with Volkswagen that the California Unfair Competition Law and Fair Advertising Law provide the most relevant civil sanctions in the case. That those laws impose a maximum civil penalty of $2,500 per violation further supports the reduction of the punitive damages award in the case. The punitive damages awarded to each Plaintiff will be reduced to four times the amount of his, her, or their compensatory damages. Luke and Kathryn Sanwick's punitive damages are reduced to $12,532, Timothy Riley's punitive damages are reduced to $4,320, Julia Robertson's punitive damages are reduced to $3,808, and Scott Salzer's punitive damages are reduced to $2,328. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Breyer held that Volkswagen has established a valid "correction" defense under California Civil Code § 1782(b) to each prevailing Plaintiffs' CLRA damages claim, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a mistrial and Volkswagen's Rule 50(a) motion, and reduces the punitive damages awards to four times the amount of each Plaintiff's compensatory damages award. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 10, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/NOdlZH from Leagle.com. MDL 2672: Cal. District Court Enjoins Rambuski State Court Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles Beyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Volkswagen's Motion to Enforce Edwin Rambuski's Release in the case captioned IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. No. 6739. MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.). Although initially opting out of the 2.0-liter class settlement, Edwin Rambuski later revoked his opt out, signed an individual release of claims, and participated in the settlement by returning his 2010 Volkswagen Golf TDI to Volkswagen in exchange for $14,825. In the release that he signed, he agreed to release any and all claims against Volkswagen arising out of or in any way related to the 2.0-liter TDI matter. Despite that agreement, Mr. Rambuski continues to pursue a California state court action against Volkswagen, in which all of his claims relate to the 2.0-liter TDI matter. Volkswagen has asked the District Court to enforce Mr. Rambuski's release and to enjoin his state court action. Mr. Rambuski did not file a response to Volkswagen's motion. But before Volkswagen filed its motion, he did send Volkswagen's counsel an email about his state court action, and Volkswagen attached that email to its motion. In the email, Mr. Rambuski stated that he was continuing to pursue his state court action because he "did not voluntarily participate in the Class Action Settlement. Rambuski explained further that after he initially opted out of the settlement, his Golf TDI broke down approximately 30 miles from his home. A mechanic estimated that the repairs would be in excess of $5,000. He did not have a place to store the car in its broken condition, so he needed to either abandon the car, have it repaired, or participate in the 2.0-liter settlement. If he participated in the settlement, he could leave his car with a local Volkswagen dealership pursuant to the settlement's buyback program. He chose that option. The District Court notes that Mr. Rambuski has not made a showing that the circumstances that he was under when he decided to participate in the settlement were of a kind that would render his release of claims unenforceable. Under his own volition, he executed the release, participated in the TDI buyback, and agreed to be bound by the terms of the settlement agreement. The District Court has retained jurisdiction to enforce the 2.0-liter settlement agreement and under the All Writs Act, the Court has the authority to enjoin state proceedings that interfere, derogate, or conflict with federal judgments, orders, or settlements. The Court invoked that authority when it approved the 2.0-liter settlement, enjoining all class members from pursuing released claims. That injunction applies to Mr. Rambuski, who by revoking his opt out became a 2.0-liter class member. Accordingly, as all claims in his state court action against Volkswagen relate to the 2.0-liter TDI matter, and thus were released, Mr. Rambuski is ENJOINED from continuing to prosecute that action, and Volkswagen's motion to enforce Mr. Rambuski's release is GRANTED, Judge Beyer rules. A full-text copy of Judge Beyer's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wcu2cd9 from Leagle.com. Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer, Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by Caleb Marker - caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman , Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, 1100 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402, pro hac vice. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague - avague@lightfootlaw.com - Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier - clucier@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com - Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker , Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Two West Second Street, 10th Floor, Tulsa, OK 74103, Dana Woodrum Lang , Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, 5 Exchange Street Charleston, SC 29401, David M. Eisenberg - eisenberg@bscr-law.com - Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. - henry.smythe@wbd-us.com - Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -hfeller@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP, Hugh J. Bode - hbode@reminger.com - Reminger & Reminger Co LPA, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. - rbibb@lewisthomason.com - Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C. MDL 2672: Court Remands T. Becker Suit to State Court ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles Beyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting Becker's Motion to Remand in the case IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: Becker, No. 3:18-cv-07096-CRB, Dkt. No. 6, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC), (N.D. Cal.). In California state court, Thomas Becker filed a lawsuit against a California-based Volkswagen dealership and against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (VWGoA). He brought claims for fraud, negligence, and for violation of California's consumer protection and warranty laws. Each claim was based on multiple theories. Soon after he purchased a used 2013 Volkswagen Jetta from the dealership in 2018, Becker began noticing several problems with the car. One was that the car drifted to the right when he was driving. Volkswagen Group removed Becker's case to federal court, based on federal-question jurisdiction. In the notice of removal, the company added details about Becker's car that he had not included in his complaint. The company explained that the car was a 2.0-liter TDI diesel, which was the type of car that was at the center of the company's "clean diesel" scandal. The company also explained that pursuant to a consent decree that the California District Court approved in 2016, it had repurchased the car from its original owner, modified the car's emissions systems, and then made the car available for resale. According to Volkswagen Group, the "so-called 'lemon law buyback'" that Becker referred to in his complaint was this repurchase and modification. Upon its removal, Becker's case was added to the Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Litigation, an MDL case. Becker responded by filing a motion to remand his case to state court. In his motion, Becker contends that remand is warranted because his claims arise only under state law. In response, Volkswagen Group asserts that although Becker's claims are state law claims, they will necessarily raise an issue of federal law, and thus give rise to federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331. The well-pleaded-complaint rule governs whether Becker's case arises under federal law for purposes of Section 1331. Under that rule, only his complaint may be considered in determining whether his claims will necessarily raise a federal issue. Becker's complaint makes no reference to the 2016 consent decree or to his car being a 2.0-liter TDI. He instead focuses on the car's accident history, the dealership's used-car certification process, and on whether his car should have been branded as a lemon under state law. It is only in response to his complaint that Volkswagen Group invokes the consent decree as an affirmative defense. Part and parcel of the well-pleaded-complaint rule is the rule that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense. As Volkswagen Group invokes the consent decree only in defense, the decree does not give rise to jurisdiction under Section 1331. Jurisdiction is lacking for an additional reason. Becker's claims are each based on multiple theories, only one of which is that defendants erred by not labeling his car as a lemon. Volkswagen Group has not suggested that the other theories, such as Becker's theory that the defendants should have disclosed that his car had been in an accident, will require consideration of the 2016 consent decree at all, not even as an affirmative defense. When a claim is based on multiple theories, and only one would raise a federal issue, arising under jurisdiction under Section 1331 is not present. For this reason too, jurisdiction under Section 1331 is lacking, the Court opines. The Court does not have federal-question jurisdiction over Becker's action, Judge Beyer opines. Becker's motion to remand his case to state court is therefore granted, the Court rules. A full-text copy of Judge Beyer's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/wzawd32 from Leagle.com. Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey - rob@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman - steve@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser - toml@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart - astewart@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -tshapiro@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro , Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer, Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by Caleb Marker - caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman , Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, 1100 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402, pro hac vice. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague - avague@lightfootlaw.com - Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier - clucier@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III - chuck.baker@wbd-us.com - Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker , Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Two West Second Street, 10th Floor, Tulsa, OK 74103, Dana Woodrum Lang , Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, 5 Exchange Street Charleston, SC 29401, David M. Eisenberg - eisenberg@bscr-law.com - Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. - henry.smythe@wbd-us.com - Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -hfeller@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP, Hugh J. Bode - hbode@reminger.com - Reminger & Reminger Co LPA, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr. - rbibb@lewisthomason.com - Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C. MDL 2738: 4 Talcum Suits vs. Johnson & Johnson Moved to New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2738, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring four actions to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The four actions are: Middle District of Georgia COX, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-00030 Northern District of Georgia DENNEY v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20–00756 Southern District of Georgia SUMNER v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20–00035 Eastern District of Missouri STALNAKER v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20–000356 Plaintiffs in the four actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's orders that conditionally transferred these actions to the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2738. Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., PTI Royston, LLC, and Cyprus Amax Minerals Company oppose the motions in all four actions. Defendants PTI Union, LLC, and Cyprus Mines Corporation oppose the motion to vacate in the Eastern District of Missouri Stalnaker action. In support of their motions to vacate, plaintiffs argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction over their respective actions is lacking, and that plaintiffs' pending motions for remand to state court should be decided before transfer. The Panel has held that such jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to transfer. The Panel is not persuaded that plaintiffs' jurisdictional objections should be treated differently because remand purportedly is compelled under controlling case law. The Panel regularly order transfer of actions over similar objections, consistent with the well-established principle that the Panel lacks the authority under Section 1407 to decide questions going to the jurisdiction or merits of a case. Plaintiffs' argument that Johnson & Johnson has engaged in a pattern of frivolous removals, inconsistent with the transferee court's prior remand orders in this docket, likewise does not support vacating the conditional transfer order. Not only would plaintiffs' argument require that the Panel judges the merit of defendants' removals, but the court best placed to recognize and address any pattern of frivolous removals is the transferee court. Furthermore, while the transferee court has decided a number of remand motions in this MDL, it does not appear, as yet, to have decided motions presenting the specific fraudulent joinder arguments and named defendants as these actions. Finally, plaintiffs argue that they will be prejudiced by transfer. This argument is unconvincing. Transfer of an action is appropriate if it furthers the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties to the action might experience inconvenience or delay. Plaintiffs can present their remand arguments to the transferee judge. Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds that the four actions involve common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2738, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the Judge held that the District of New Jersey was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising from allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents developed ovarian cancer following perineal application of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products (namely, Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower body powder). The four actions share multiple questions of fact with the actions already in the MDL. A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/OPKXYR MDL 2804: 14 National Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL No. 2804, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 14 actions to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in 13 actions and Northern District of Mississippi defendants Tom Bruce Longest, Jr., M.D., and Bruce Family Medical Center move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the orders conditionally transferring their respective actions, which are listed on Schedule A, to MDL No. 2804. Various defendants oppose the motions. After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Caldwell finds these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set forth in the Panel's order directing centralization. In that order, the Panel held that the Northern District of Ohio was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and distribution of various prescription opiate medications into states, cities, and towns across the country. Despite some variances among the actions before the Panel, all share a factual core with the MDL actions: the manufacturer and distributor defendants' alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of the drugs. These actions therefore fall within the MDL's ambit. Plaintiffs and the Northern District of Mississippi defendants oppose transfer by principally arguing that federal jurisdiction is lacking over their cases. But opposition to transfer based on a jurisdictional challenge is insufficient to warrant vacating conditional transfer of factually related cases.2Most opponents of transfer also argue that including their actions in this large MDL will cause them inconvenience and delay the progress of their actions. Given the undisputed factual overlap with the MDL proceedings, transfer is justified in order to facilitate the efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole. A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/sP4jwE MDL 2941: 13 Nine West LBO Securities Litigation Moved to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE: NINE WEST LBO SECURITIES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2941, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 13 actions to the Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in all actions move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the District of Massachusetts. The motion encompasses thirteen actions pending in six districts. The Panel also has been notified of two potentially-related actions filed in the Central District of California. More than 175 defendants responded, all in favor of centralization in the Southern District of New York. On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, Judge Caldwell finds that the actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Southern District of New York will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All responding parties agree that these actions share factual questions arising from the 2014 leveraged buyout (LBO) of The Jones Group, Inc. (Jones Group), and the 2018 bankruptcy of its remaining entity, Nine West Holdings, Inc. (Nine West). Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. Plaintiffs and defendants accuse each other of forum shopping. Defendants argue that plaintiffs have not sued entities and individuals in New York to avoid unfavorable Second Circuit precedent regarding the "safe harbor" in Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e). Plaintiffs, at oral argument, readily agreed that this was the case. Plaintiffs argue that defendants seek transfer to the Southern District of New York, not because it is the most convenient transferee district, but because it is located in the one circuit where substantive law is favorable to defendants. As an initial matter, the Panel does not consider "[t]he prospect of an unfavorable ruling by the transferee court or the possibility that another district judge maybe more favorably disposed to a litigant's contention . . . in exercising its discretion under Section 1407." Rather, the Panel considers which district will best serve "the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions. This litigation's center of gravity is in the Southern District of New York, and the Panel is persuaded that it is the most appropriate transferee district for pretrial proceedings. Both Jones Group and Nine West were headquartered there, as are many other entities, advisors, and lenders involved in the 2014 LBO. Nine West filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York, which involved discovery taken in New York. Furthermore, there has been no significant activity in any action such that transfer to another district would disrupt its efficient progress. Judge Caldwell finds that centralization in this district will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of these actions. That a related action is not pending in the Southern District of New York is not a bar to centralization there. Judge Jed S. Rakoff is an experienced transferee judge, and the Panel is confident he will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course to resolution. A full-text copy of the Court's June 2, 2020 Transfer Order is available at https://is.gd/I6WgnK MEDCARE STAFFING: Court Denies Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Progressive Health and Rehab Corp. v. Medcare Staffing, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-04710-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order: 1. denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss; and 2. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's placeholder motion for class certification. Judge Marbley said, "Because putative class members are not parties for determining personal jurisdiction and because the Defendant concedes that specific personal jurisdiction exists over it as to the claim brought by the Plaintiff, this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Medcare and can entertain the nationwide class claims. The Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied. The Plaintiff has also filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification as means of preventing the Defendant from picking off "its individual claims in order to 'moot' the case before the Court can decide the issue of class certification." Courts frequently deny such placeholder motions as premature and do not hold these motions in abeyance when they have been filed prematurely intentionally." Progressive alleges it received several unsolicited faxes from Medcare that did not contain opt-out language mandated by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Junk Fax Prevention Act. Progressive is an Ohio-based chiropractic clinic. Medcare Staffing is a Georgia based professional staffing agency.[CC] MEDSTAR HEALTH: Mismanaged Retirement Plan, Reed Claims ------------------------------------------------------- ELSA REED, Individually, as representative of a class of similarly situated persons and on behalf of the MEDSTAR HEALTH, INC. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiff, v. MEDSTAR HEALTH, INC.; THE MEDSTAR HEALTH, INC. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE; and DOES No. 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01984-RDB (D. Md., July 6, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff, individually as a participant of the MedStar Health, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, on behalf of the Plan and a class of similarly-situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, against Defendants who are members of the Administrative Committee and whose names are currently unknown for breach of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and related breaches of applicable law beginning six years from the date this action is filed and continuing to the date of judgment. MedStar maintains the Retirement Savings Plan, and is responsible for selecting, monitoring, and retaining the service provider(s) that provide investment, recordkeeping, and other administrative services. MedStar is a fiduciary under ERISA, and, as such, is obligated to (a) act for the exclusive benefit of participants, (b) ensure that the investment options offered through the Plan are prudent and diverse, and (c) ensure that Plan expenses are fair and reasonable. According to the complaint, Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan and have: (1) failed to fully disclose the expenses and risk of the Plan's investment options to participants; and (2) selected, retained, and/or otherwise ratified high-cost and poorly-performing investments, instead of offering more prudent alternative investments when such prudent investments were readily available at the time that they were chosen for inclusion within the Plan and throughout the Class Period. MedStar is a non-profit corporation that offers clinical care through its multiple hospitals and ancillary services in Maryland and District of Columbia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy F. Maloney, Esq. Jay P. Holland, Esq. JOSEPH GREENWALD & LAAKE, PA 6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770-1417 Telephone: (301) 220-2200 Facsimile: (301) 220-1214 - and - James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com lrubinow@sfmslaw.com - and - James C. Shah, Esq. Michael P. Ols, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com aberin@sfmslaw.com - and - Kolin C. Tang, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1401 Dove Street, Suite 510 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (323) 510-4060 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com MENLO THERAPEUTICS: Documentation of Savelstrov Pact Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Menlo Therapeutics Inc.'s US$9.5-million settlement of the case styled, Savelstrov v. Menlo Therapeutics Inc., et al., remains subject to final documentation and Court approval, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On November 8, 2018 and January 28, 2019, two purported class actions were filed in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors. The actions are entitled Savelstrov v. Menlo Therapeutics Inc., et al., and McKay v. Menlo Therapeutics Inc., et al. The underwriters for the Company's initial public offering were also named as defendants in these lawsuits. The complaints contain identical allegations against the same defendants. Both complaints alleged that the Registration Statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public offering contained false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The complaints seek, among other things, an award of damages in an amount to be proven at trial, along with reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. The McKay action has been consolidated with the Savelstrov action and the claim for violations of Section 12(a)(2) has been dismissed. The parties have mediated the consolidated lawsuit and reached a settlement, providing for payment to the class of plaintiffs in the amount of US$9.5 million in return for a release of all claims against the defendants, including the Company and its current and former officers and directors. The settlement is subject to final documentation and Court approval. Menlo Therapeutics said, "The Company's insurance carriers will pay the vast majority of the settlement amount. Menlo accrued for the remaining settlement amount that is not covered by insurance carriers as of December 31, 2019, which did not have a material impact on its financial statements." Menlo Therapeutics Inc., a late-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of serlopitant for the treatment of pruritus associated with dermatologic conditions in the United States. Menlo Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. MESSERLI & KRAMER: Olszewski Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MARYANN OLSZEWSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MESSERLI & KRAMER P.A. AND LVNV FUNDING LLC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01030 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint herself as the class representative, and appoint her attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com MIELE INCORPORATED: Faces Williams ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miele, Incorporated. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Miele, Incorporated, Case No. 1:20-cv-04794-GHW (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Mauviel is an import and export company based in New Castle, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com MORTGAGE LENDERS: Pending Bid for Class Certification Mooted ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as BEAU CHARBONNEAU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MORTGAGE LENDERS OF AMERICA, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02062-HLT-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Holly L. Teeter entered an order: 1. mooting the Plaintiff's pending motion for class certification. 2. granting the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. The Defendants are granted summary judgment on Counts III, IV, VI, and VII. Count V is dismissed without prejudice. -- Count III: The Plaintiff, in his role as a loan officer, alleges that Defendant MLOA is liable under the KWPA for "unlawful withholding of straight time and overtime wages." The Plaintiff claims that, "by failing to accurately record, maintain records of, and pay for Plaintiff's actual hours worked, the Defendant MLOA willfully reduced the total number of hours on Plaintiff's paychecks." -- Count IV: The Plaintiff, in both his roles as a loan officer and as a team lead, alleges that Defendant MLOA "withheld, deducted, or diverted certain credit report fees and appraisal fees from Plaintiff's wages." The Plaintiff claims that this act violates the KWPA because the KWPA prohibits "withholding, deducting, or diverting any portion of Plaintiff's wages, except under limited circumstances." -- Count VI: The Plaintiff, in his role as a loan officer, claims that Defendant MLOA breached its employment compensation agreements with Plaintiff. This breach was based both on (1) Defendant MLOA's failure to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked, including straight time and overtime, as well as (2) Defendant MLOA's failure to pay Plaintiff all "contractually promised wages when it withheld, deducted, or diverted credit report fees and appraisal fees from earned wages." -- Count VII: The Plaintiff, in his role as a team lead, alleges that Defendant MLOA breached the parties' employment agreement by failing to pay Plaintiff all contractually- promised wages when it "withheld, deducted, or diverted credit report fees and appraisal fees from earned wages." The Court said, "Without valid underlying state law claims, the Court cannot certify a class. The Court therefore orders that Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as moot and without prejudice. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant MLOA. While an employee, Plaintiff worked in two different capacities: as a loan officer and as a team lead. He was a loan officer during two separate periods of time and a team lead for a single period of about three years in between. The Plaintiff’s employment in each role was governed by one or more employment agreements. Mortgage Lenders is a financial services company that provides online mortgage lending services, headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas.[CC] MOUNTAINSMITH LLC: Faces Williams ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mountainsmith, LLC. The case is captioned as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mountainsmith, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04795-AT (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Mountainsmith is an outdoor gear manufacturer that specializes in durable goods for hiking and camping.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com NATIONAL FREIGHT: Court Grants Class Certification in Portillo Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN F. PORTILLO et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC. and NFI INTERACTIVE LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-07908-JHR-KMW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. NFI Interactive provides logistics solutions. The Company offers transportation management, warehousing, distribution, ambient and temperature controlled storage, intermodal, brokerage, online web tracking, and reporting services.[CC] NAUTILUS INC: Misrepresents Treadmills' HP Ratings, Walker Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Walker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NAUTILUS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03414-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, July 7, 2020), is brought to seek damages and equitable relief and to challenge the conduct of the Defendant in the advertising, marketing, and sale of its personal fitness treadmills, which are incapable of reaching and maintaining the Defendant's overstated and inflated continuous horsepower representations during normal designed household exercise use. The treadmill motor horsepower rating is one of the most prevalent and recognized specifications a consumer has to compare when purchasing a treadmill. The horsepower delivered by the motor directly affects the quality of the treadmill's performance and a reasonable consumer's purchasing decision. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has deceitfully "out-spec'ed" its competition with false and misleading horsepower ratings intended to lure consumers into purchasing its treadmills and paying an inflated price based on the horsepower misrepresentations. The Defendant misleads consumers into believing that the Treadmills can generate and maintain the represented continuous horsepower, even though in fact the horsepower misrepresentations can never be obtained during actual household use by the Plaintiff and consumer Class members, according to the complaint. The Defendant charges a premium for the Treadmills based on the misrepresented continuous horsepower capabilities available during household usage. The Defendant represents on its websites, marketing materials, and in store displays at third-party retailers (such as Dick's Sporting Goods) that the Treadmills have a specific power output, quantified in continuous horsepower ("CHP"), that they cannot produce during household usage. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's false and misleading Treadmill CHP advertising presents a continuing threat to the Plaintiff and consumers, and as such, the conduct is ongoing. The Plaintiff alleges that he has a significant probability of future harm because of the ongoing, highly technical, and not readily apparent horsepower misrepresentations when purchasing future fitness equipment. He adds that the Defendant continues to prevalently display its CHP misrepresentations and fails to sufficiently notify a reasonable consumer, like him, as to the true operating capabilities of the Treadmills. He insists that reasonable consumers cannot properly evaluate the Treadmills' actual power capabilities and are left to believe Nautilus's CHP misrepresentations are accurate. The Plaintiff purchased a Bowflex BXT116 treadmill online from http://www.bowflex.com/on March 4, 2019, for the purpose of using the treadmill for personal use. The Defendant is a publicly traded global technology driven fitness solutions company headquartered in Vancouver, Washington, and incorporated in the State of Washington. The Company manufactures, develops, markets, distributes, and sells a variety of treadmill models throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. W.B. Markovits, Esq. Justin C. Walker, Esq. Zachary C Schaengold, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DeMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Rd., Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Phone: (513) 665-0200 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com bmarkovits@msdlegal.com jwalker@msdlegal.com zschaengold@msdlegal.com - and - Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 941-4005 Facsimile: (952) 941-2337 Email: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner Esq. Jeffrey D. Bores Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com jbores@chestnutcambronne.com NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Panzarella Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Elizabeth Panzarella and Joshua Panzarella filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in their lawsuit entitled Elizabeth Panzarella, et al. v. Navient Solutions Inc., Case No. 2-18-cv-03735, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Telephone Consumers Protection Act. The Defendants attempted to collect a debt incurred by the Panzarellas arising from a student loan, notes the complaint. They placed unauthorized calls using an automatic telephone dialing system with a pre-recorded or artificial voices. The Plaintiffs expressly revoked any prior express consent to receive calls to their cellular phone, it adds. The appellate case is captioned as Elizabeth Panzarella, et al. v. Navient Solutions Inc., Case No. 20-2371, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ELIZABETH PANZARELLA and JOSHUA PANZARELLA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. David A. Searles, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee NAVIENT SOLUTIONS INC. is represented by: Daniel T. Brier, Esq. Donna A. Walsh, Esq. MYERS BRIER & KELLY 425 Spruce Street, Suite 200 Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 342-6100 E-mail: dbrier@mbklaw.com dwalsh@mbklaw.com - and - Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7824 E-mail: simonettil@gtlaw.com NEVADA ADULT: 9th Cir. Affirms Porter Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit has issued an Opinion affirming the District Court’s Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss a class suit against Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services. The appellate case is captioned CLORISSA D. PORTER; WILLIAM D. SPENCER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHERN NEVADA ADULT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, AKA Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital, a mental health treatment operation licensed by the State of Nevada; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 18-15360. (9th Cir.). The district court's order dismissed the Porter case as time-barred. Former patients of Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services (SNAMHS), Porter and Spencer filed the class action on behalf of themselves and victims of an alleged scheme to unlawfully discharge mental health patients after the statute of limitations had run on their claims. Porter and Spencer had delayed filing their class action while an earlier class action plaintiff who represented them as putative class members proceeded in an ultimately unsuccessful appeal to this court. Porter and Spencer argued that their class claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 should be subject to tolling under either the principles expressed in American Pipe Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) and its progeny or traditional principles of equitable tolling. The district court denied tolling under both theories. The Appellate Court reviewed de novo whether the district court erred by failing to extend traditional principles of equitable tolling to Porter's and Spencer's class claims. Neither the court nor the Nevada Supreme Court has addressed whether traditional principles of equitable tolling extend beyond individual claims to apply to successive class claims. The Appellate Court agreed with this conclusion and declined to apply any principles of equitable tolling to Porter's and Spencer's successive class claims. The Appellate Court declined to consider whether Porter's and Spencer's individual claims are subject to tolling under American Pipe or traditional principles of equitable tolling because neither Porter nor Spencer raised this issue in their opening brief. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals’ December 19, 2019 Memorandum is available at https://preview.tinyurl.com/tbj9adj from Leagle.com NEW YORK: Gym Owners Filing Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------ Dan Schrack, writing for ABC's 13WHAM, reports that gym owners in New York are filing a class-action case against the state, demanding the governor let them open back up. Most expected their facilities would be included in phase four of the state's re-opening process, but they learned at the 11th hour, they were not. "People need this more than they need to go to the bar, the liquor store wherever," said World Gym Rochester and Greece owner, Ron Sember. In March, the gym Sember has owned for 23 years, was forced to close because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But, Sember never thought more than 100 days later, he would still be closed. "I figured maybe 30 days. Maybe 45 days. Sixty at the most. But here we are, we're almost four months into this," Sember said. "Which it's crazy!" Semper, like many others, thought gyms were included in phase four, but only days before the Finger Lakes region was ready to move out of phase three, they found out that had changed. With no guidance from the state, he and 3,000 other gym owners are now filing a class-action case, demanding they be allowed to reopen. The group is has reached out to Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office, to no avail. "At least tell us we can open our doors or give us a timeframe based on data and information," said Sember. "Not one guy making financial decisions of thousands of people." Those decisions, Sember says, are costing him big. "Even though we're closed, I've still got 15 to $20,000 worth of bills every month that I've got to pay." While money is a big part of it, Sember's other concern is his members. " . . . for a lot of people, it's mental health - helping them manage their lives," said Sember. In a statement, the governor's office said it can't comment on the case, adding, " . . . there are some things that don't fit neatly into a phase that are going to require further study and we're going through that right now. We're not going to be like other states that are inviting a second wave." [GN] NEXTEP FUNDING: Court Dismisses CILA, Interest Act Suit ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned CHAN-LI PRAYITNO, Plaintiff, v. NEXTEP FUNDING LLC, Defendant. No. 17 C 4310. (N.D. Ill.) Before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Chan-Li Prayitno claims that, in offering plaintiff financing for a new auto transmission, defendant Nextep Funding LLC (Nextep) obscured the true cost of the financing, violating the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA)., the Illinois Consumer Installment Loan Act (CILA) and the Illinois Interest Act (Interest Act). Defendant moves for summary judgment on all three counts of plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. First, defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the TILA claim (Count I) because plaintiff lacks standing and even if plaintiff has standing, defendant argues, he lacks evidence that the February 2017 transaction was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Second, defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the Interest Act/CILA claim (Count II) because the MSR Contract was for a lease, not a loan of money. Third, defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the ICFA claim (Count III) because plaintiff lacks evidence of actual damages. TRUTH IN LENDING ACT Defendant argues that plaintiff lacks standing to assert his TILA claim because, even if defendant may have committed some error or omission that technically violated TILA, plaintiff has not shown how it harmed him or risked harming him by affecting his consumer behavior. Additionally, defendant argues that the transaction was not for personal, family, or household purposes because plaintiff needed his car for work. Standing Defendant argues that plaintiff lacks standing because he lacks evidence that plaintiff had any other options for repairing his car, so, even if defendant failed to adhere to TILA's disclosure requirements, he cannot have been harmed because it cannot have affected his consumer behavior. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he could have purchased a used transmission at a lower price than the rebuilt transmission he financed with defendant, but he admitted in discovery that he lacked the cash for even that lower-cost repair. He did not shop around for lower-cost repairs or financing, and defendant not only argues that there is no evidence that he could have gotten a better deal elsewhere, but also presents (disputed) evidence that he very likely could not have, given his credit score, limited income, and lack of valuable collateral. And defendant argues that plaintiff could not explain at his deposition how, even if the APR had been disclosed to him, he would have used it to calculate the payoff amount or it otherwise would have affected his behavior. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that plaintiffs are making the sort of new argument, that is impermissible at summary judgment. Plaintiff's position is firmly rooted in the complaint and in his deposition testimony, so even if it reflects a change of tack, defendant had fair warning of it, and the change is not the sort of fundamental alteration of the factual basis for the claim that puts the argument out of bounds. Apart from this procedural challenge, defendant raises no other argument against plaintiff's standing based on the evidence that he would have not have entered into the MSR Contract if he had known the APR, even if it meant putting off the repair or borrowing from his parents. Therefore, having rejected the argument, the Court need say no more to deny defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the standing issue. Nevertheless, a brief comment on plaintiff's substantive standing argument may be useful, in case the issue comes into play at class certification or another stage of the case. In his response brief, plaintiff suggests that current Seventh Circuit law makes clear that [he] has standing, regardless of whether defendant's failure to provide the required disclosures changed his behavior in any way. Plaintiff cites the Seventh Circuit's recent decisions in Gadelhak v. AT&T Services, Inc., 950 F.3d 458, 462 (7th Cir. 2020) and Lavallee, 932 F.3d at 1053. The Court does not agree that either of these decisions represents any relevant and significant change in the law, as it applies to this case. The Court agrees with defendant that, without evidence that plaintiff would have acted differently if he had received the required TILA disclosures, this case would be more similar to Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc., 926 F.3d 329, 335 (7th Cir. 2019), which rejected the argument that the defendant's incomplete FDCPA disclosure was an injury-in-fact by itself, explaining that the case was of a piece with those in which the Seventh Circuit had held that procedural injuries under consumer-protection statutes are insufficiently concrete to confer standing by themselves. Because there are allegations in the complaint and evidence in the record suggesting that plaintiff would not have entered into the MSR Contract if the APR had been disclosed to him, plaintiff has standing to assert his TILA claim. Personal, Family, or Household Purposes Plaintiff asserts his TILA claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1638, which explicitly applies only to consumer credit transactions. TILA defines the term consumer, used with reference to a credit transaction, to characterize the transaction as one in which the money, property, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Defendant argues that plaintiff entered into the MSR contract not for personal, family, or household purposes, but for business purposes; namely, so that he could work as a food delivery driver. Plaintiff responds that (1) his primary occupation in February 2017 was studying computer networking at Joliet Junior College, (2) he worked at China House II only about twenty to thirty hours per week, (3) he did not spend all of his working hours at China House II delivering food, may have spent as few as half of them delivering food, and spent long stretches working inside the restaurant on occasion, and (4) he used the car for numerous non-work purposes, including commuting to school at either of two campuses, running errands, and traveling to social events. This evidence is sufficient at least to create a genuine issue of fact on the question of whether plaintiff entered into the MSR Contract for personal purposes. Defendant objects to labeling plaintiff's work at China House II as part-time because it was his only job, but it does not follow that it was his primary occupation, and there is evidence to the contrary. A reasonable jury could find that plaintiff entered into the MSR Contract primarily for the personal purpose of having a car to drive in his daily life, of which delivering food for pay was only a small part, particularly given that plaintiff lived with his parents and did not depend on his job at China House II for his livelihood. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied as to the TILA claim. INTEREST ACT AND CILA Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the Interest Act/CILA claim because these statutes only apply to loans of money, not to financing of goods and services. In this case, defendant contends, defendant did not lend plaintiff money. Rather, according to defendant, (1) plaintiff engaged Atomic to rebuild his transmission (2) plaintiff made a payment of $340,00 to Atomic (3) defendant paid off plaintiff's balance by making payment directly to Atomic, and (4) defendant leased the transmission to plaintiff, with an option to buy at the end of the lease term. Defendant argues that this transaction was not a loan, for purposes of the Interest Act and CILA. In the absence of Illinois authority bearing directly on the question, the absence of pertinent Illinois authority in plaintiff's brief is conspicuous), the Court concludes that defendant financed a bona fide sale of property and services without making a loan of money, for purposes of the Illinois Interest Act and CILA. It is not the classic case in which the seller offers an installment contract and then assigns it to a bank or other such institution, but it is closer to that case than to a general credit-card case or other such loan because the nature and purpose of the transaction was purely to finance a particular sale of goods and services. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as to the Interest Act/CILA claims. ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD ACT Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's ICFA claim because there is no evidence that defendant's conduct, even if misleading or unfair, caused plaintiff any actual damages. The elements of a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, are: (1) a deceptive act or practice by defendant (2) defendant's intent that plaintiff rely on the deception; and (3) that the deception occurred in the course of conduct involving trade and commerce. Plaintiff claims and supports his claim with deposition testimony that he misunderstood the true cost of the credit defendant offered him and would not have entered into the MSR Contract if defendant had disclosed the APR, which, plaintiff claims, TILA required it to do. Plaintiff entered into the MSR Contract, incurring thousands of dollars in liability over and above the cost of the repair, made an initial in-store payment, and then made another payment to defendant before filing this suit. The Court agrees with plaintiff that this is a viable damages theory. Illustrative of the point is Jamison v. Summer Infant (USA), Inc., 778 F.Supp.2d 900, 911 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted), in which the court explained that, under the ICFA, the omission or concealment of material facts can constitute the deceptive act or practice that causes actual damage to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has come forward with evidence to support actual damages under a similar theory, which is sufficient to survive defendant's motion for summary judgment. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied as to the ICFA claim. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to the Illinois Interest Act and CILA claim in Count II. It is otherwise denied. A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaw797xv from Leagle.com NEXTIER OILFIELD: Davis et al. Ask Court to Approve Class Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as MACKENZIE DAVIS, DEREK COMEAUX, CASEY HAYES, COREY HUDSON, RON MIGUES, and MICHAEL SPERLING, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NEXTIER OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, INC., NEXTIER COMPLETION SOLUTIONS, INC., and C&J ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00109-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. directing the Defendants to produce the contact information of the putative class members no later than one week after the date of the entry of the Order granting the current motion; 2. approving the Notice and Consent to join; 3. approving the sending of the Notice and Consent, and Plaintiffs' complaint and the Defendants' Answer; 4. approving the sending of the Postcard; 5. approving of notice through U.S. Mail and email; and 6. granting their counsel a period of 90 days from the date the Defendants fully and completely releases the potential class members' contact information during which to distribute the Notice and to file Consent forms. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification seeking to pursue this action as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). In conjunction with their motion for conditional certification, the Plaintiffs seek the Court's approval of certain procedures for providing notice to putative collective members. The Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of all current and former employees of the Defendants, who uniformly denied overtime wages to Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nextier provides oilfield services. The Company offers drilling and other related solutions such as developing, delivering, management, and engineering activities.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Corey E. Devine, Esq. R. John Grubb II, Esq. MUSKAT, MAHONY & DEVINE, LLP 1201 Louisiana Street, Suite 850 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 987-7850 Facsimile: (713) 987-7854 E-mail: cdevine@m2dlaw.com jgrubb@md2law.com NEXTIER OILFIELD: Davis Seeks to Certify Hourly Paid Workers Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In class action lawsuit captioned as MACKENZIE DAVIS, DEREK COMEAUX, CASEY HAYES, COREY HUDSON, RON MIGUES, and MICHAEL SPERLING, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NEXTIER OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, INC., NEXTIER COMPLETION SOLUTIONS, INC., and C&J ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00109-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order conditionally certifying a class of: "all hourly-paid workers employed by Defendants at any time hourly-paid workers after May 4, 2017, who were paid a nondiscretionary bonus, day rate and/or housing allowance attributable to work performed, and/or who were required to perform safety checks of their vehicle before driving to the job site." The Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of all current and former employees of the Defendants, who uniformly denied overtime wages to Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nextier provides oilfield services. The Company offers drilling and other related solutions such as developing, delivering, management, and engineering activities.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Corey E. Devine, Esq. R. John Grubb II, Esq. MUSKAT, MAHONY & DEVINE, LLP 1201 Louisiana Street, Suite 850 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 987-7850 Facsimile: (713) 987-7854 E-mail: cdevine@m2dlaw.com jgrubb@md2law.com NEXTIER OILFIELD: Kenworthy et al. Ask Court to Okay Class Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE KENWORTHY, CHAD HENSLEY, STEPHEN MAKANJU, TED WILLIAMS and MICHAEL SPERLING, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NEXTIER OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, INC., NEXTIER COMPLETION SOLUTIONS, INC., and C&J ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00111-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. directing the Defendants to produce the contact information of the putative class members no later than one week after the date of the entry of the Order granting the current motion; 2. approving the Notice and Consent to join; 3. approving the sending of the Notice and Consent, and Plaintiffs' complaint and the Defendants' Answer; 4. approving the sending of the Postcard; 5. approving of notice through U.S. Mail and email; and 6. granting their counsel a period of 90 days from the date the Defendants fully and completely releases the potential class members' contact information during which to distribute the Notice and to file Consent forms. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification seeking to pursue this action as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). In conjunction with their motion for conditional certification, the Plaintiffs seek the Court's approval of certain procedures for providing notice to putative collective members. The Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of all current and former employees of the Defendants, who uniformly denied overtime wages to Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nextier provides oilfield services. The Company offers drilling and other related solutions such as developing, delivering, management, and engineering activities.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Corey E. Devine, Esq. R. John Grubb II, Esq. MUSKAT, MAHONY & DEVINE, LLP 1201 Louisiana Street, Suite 850 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 987-7850 Facsimile: (713) 987-7854 E-mail: cdevine@m2dlaw.com jgrubb@md2law.com NMSO INC: Faces Mahmudur Employment Suit in California Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NMSO Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Mahmudur Rahman and all others similarly situated v. NMSO Inc.; Anabi Convenience Centers Inc.; Anabi Oil Corporation; Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2020-00281076-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 22, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws. NMSO operates gas stations in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Dr., Ste. 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com NORCAL HOLISTICS: Bode Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE BODE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORCAL HOLISTICS, INC., a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01357-KJM-EFB (E.D. Cal., July 7, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff received numerous telemarketing text messages to his cellular telephone number ending in 7885 over the past year from Defendant in an attempt to promote its cannabis products. Plaintiff asserts that she did not provide Defendant a prior express written consent to receive those text messages which has caused him actual harm and disruption to her daily life, such as invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Norcal Holistics, Inc. sells cannabis products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE: Santiago Seeks Proper Wage Pay for Therapists ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOAN SANTIAGO, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, vs. NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE GROUP; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:20-at-00681 (E.D. Cal., July 9, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, provide meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, offer timely pay all wages due, along with unfair business practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code. Plaintiff was employed by NorthBay as an hourly paid non-exempt Respiratory Therapist from on or about January 2017 to on or about October 2018. Defendant has systematically failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees for all their work performed, both overtime and non-overtime hours. Defendant's facilities are systematically understaffed so that Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees are left to input patient information "off-the-clock" into the electronic medical record (EMR) keeping software used by Defendant either before the start of their shift, during their meal breaks, or after their shift. Northbay Healthcare Group is a nonprofit health care organization that includes two hospitals in Solano County, California: NorthBay Medical Center in Fairfield and NorthBay VacaValley Hospital in Vacaville.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com josh@thiermabuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com NUCO2 LLC: Townhouse Files Renewed Bid to Certify Three Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as TOWNHOUSE RESTAURANT OF OVIEDO, INC. and ESTERO BAY HOTEL CO. v. NUCO2, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-14085-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting renewed bid to certify three classes: The Fuel Surcharge Class: "all individuals and entities in the United States who paid the standard fuel surcharge to NuCO2 at any time from March 5, 2015 through the date of certification"; The Energy Surcharge Class: "all individuals and entities in the United States who paid the standard energy surcharge to NuCO2 at any time from March 5, 2015 through the date of certification"; The Price Increase Class "all individuals and entities in the United States who paid more than their contractually agreed-upon price as a result of an open escalation price increase from March 5, 2015 through the date of certification." Excluded from all classes are: (1) Customers who did not enter into "STA" versions "B," "D," "F," "G," "H," or "I" of the form NuCO2 agreement; and (2) Municipalities, governmental entities, any entity currently in bankruptcy, any entity whose obligations have been discharged through bankruptcy, and any judicial officer who has presided over this case. 2. appointing the Plaintiff Townhouse Restaurant of Oviedo, Inc. to represent the Energy Surcharge Class and the Price Increase Class; 3. appointing the Plaintiff Estero Bay Hotel Co. to represent the Fuel Surcharge Class and the Price Increase Class; 4. appointing Nicholas Armstrong, Taylor Bartlett, Anthony Garcia, and Michelle Drake as class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). According to the complaint, NuCO2 engaged in deceptive and unfair conduct in connection with the "fuel surcharges," "energy surcharges," and "open escalation" price increases it imposes. NuCO2 purportedly charges the fuel and energy surcharges to pass-through increased fuel costs it incurs, uses specific fee terms to convey this message, and represents that the fee is based on a "prevailing" fuel price. NuCO2 is a beverage carbonation company which is wholly owned by Praxair, Inc., the largest industrial and medical gasses company in North America, with more than $11 billion in annual revenue.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq. Garrett Owens, Esq. PRICE ARMSTRONG , LLC 2226 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205 208 9588 Facsimile: 205 208 9598 E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com garrett@pricearmstrong.com - and - Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205 326 3336 E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Joseph E. Hashmall, Esq BERGER MONTAGUE PC 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Telephone: 612.594.5999 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net jhashmall@bm.net - and - Anthony J. Garcia, Esq. AG LAW, P.A. 3602 W. Euclid Avenue Tampa, FL 33629 Telephone: 813 259 9555 Facsimile: 813 254 9555 E-mail: anthony@aglawinc.com NYC TRUCKING: Faces Velasquez Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Benito Velasquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NYC TRUCKING CORP. d/b/a NYC PRODUCE, and VICTORIANO BRACO, as an individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-05229 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiffs' employment. Although the Plaintiff worked for 60 hours or more per week during his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay him time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a stocker and cleaner. NYC TRUCKING CORP., doing business as NYC PRODUCE, is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office located in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 ONTARIO: Koskie Minsky Files Care Home Negligence Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Koskie Minsky LLP has commenced a class proceeding against the Province of Ontario in respect of the widespread illness, suffering and loss of life among long-term care home residents due to COVID-19. The class action is brought on behalf of all individuals who reside or resided in long-term care homes in Ontario where one or more individuals tested positive for COVID-19, and their parents, spouses, siblings and children. It is alleged that Ontario's longstanding systemic failures to properly regulate and oversee long-term care homes in Ontario. It is further alleged that the system was primed for rapid spread of a disease like COVID-19. In addition, it is alleged that Ontario failed to take steps to protect residents, and that the measures Ontario did implement were inadequate and amount to "too little too late". Kirk Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky, has stated: "This case concerns systemic issues that have plagued long-term care homes in Ontario for years. The Province has long been aware of these issues and has ignored them for far too long." For further information: If you are interested in participating in the class action, please contact us at Toll Free: 1-833-630-1787 or Email: longtermcareclassaction@kmlaw.ca, https://kmlaw.ca/ [GN] OXY USA: Must Face Gas Well Royalty Owners' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Maya Earls, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the certification of a class action filed by gas well royalty owners against Oxy USA Inc. wasn't improper, a Kansas appeals court ruled. Cooper Clark Foundation argues in its lawsuit on behalf of Kansas royalty owners that Oxy underpaid royalties for years by subtracting processing expenses from payments. Cooper said the deductions violated Oxy's duties under the gas leases. [GN] PA URBAN AFFAIRS: Certification of FLSA Collective Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGELIC BRADLEY v. THE GREATER PHILADELPHIA URBAN AFFAIRS COALITION, Case No. 2:19-cv-05845-JD (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective defined as: "all persons presently or formerly employed by the Defendant during the past three years in the positions of Juvenile Advocate, Administrative Coordinator, Crisis Intervention, and/or Adult Advocate, or in positions with substantially similar job duties who Defendant classified as "exempt" and paid on a salary basis, and denied overtime compensation for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek." The Urban Affairs Coalition has mission to unite government, business, neighborhoods, and individual initiatives to improve the quality of life in the greater Philadelphia region, build wealth in urban communities, and solve emerging issues.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-273-1054 Facsimile: 215-525-0210 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com The Defendant is represented by: Malcolm Ingram, Esq. Andrew LaFiura, Esq. Jackson Lewis, P.C. Three Parkway, Suite 1350 1601 Cherry Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 E-mail: Malcolm.ingram@jacksonlewis.com LaFiuraa@jacksonlewis.com PHH CORP: CWELT-2008 Series Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff CWELT-2008 Series 1045 LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled CWELT-2008 Series 1045 LLC v. PHH Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-20334-BB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The PHH Corporation is an American financial services corporation headquartered in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, which provides mortgage services to some of the world's largest financial services firms. The appellate case is captioned as CWELT-2008 Series 1045 LLC v. PHH Corporation, Case No. 20-12409, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- The appellant's brief is due on or before August 3, 2020; -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before July 22, 2020 as to Appellee PHH Corporation.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CWELT-2008 SERIES 1045 LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jordan M. Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, PA 4473 NE 11th Ave. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Telephone: (954) 616-8995 E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee PHH CORPORATION is represented by: Patrick G. Broderick, Esq. Adam P. Hartley, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA 777 S Flagler Dr., Ste. 300E West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 650-7900 E-mail: broderickp@gtlaw.com hartleya@gtlaw.com PLAID: Faces Class Action Over Data Privacy Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Michael Kapilkov, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that June 25, a new class action was filed in California against fintech startup Plaid, which was acquired by Visa for $5.3 billion earlier this year. The plaintiffs allege that Plaid violated privacy and data protections by accumulating and monetizing financial transactions of millions of users. $5,000 per infraction The complaint alleges that the company accumulated this data by "data plumbing" popular services like Venmo, Stripe, Square's Cash App and Robinhood. It purports that Plaid knew: "Every dollar you deposit or withdraw, every dollar you charge or pay to your credit card, and every dollar you put away for retirement, within hours after you make the transaction. Imagine this includes every book or movie ticket or meal you purchase, every bill you pay to a doctor or hospital, and every payment you make (or miss) on your mortgage, student loan or credit card bill." The complaint contends that each of the violations has caused damages to the class members that exceed "$5,000 per year individually or in the aggregate". It does not specify at this point the amount of compensation the class members are seeking. Plaid denies all allegations Plaid spokesperson released the following statement to Cointelegraph: "The lawsuit filed against Plaid is baseless and Plaid will vigorously defend itself. Plaid does not sell and has never sold consumers' personal information or data. Consumer data is obtained and used with consumer consent. We believe strongly that consumers should have permission-based access to and control over their financial data, and embody these principles in our practices." [GN] PLAYAGS: Frank R. Cruz Law Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- IGamingBusiness reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against PlayAGS after the gaming technology supplier was accused of failing to disclose information about its business, operations and prospects to investors. The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz launched the lawsuit on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or acquired PlayAGS securities between August 2, 2018, and August 7, 2019. On the final day of the period in question, PlayAGS reported a net loss of $7.6m for its second quarter, covering the three months to June 30, 2019. This included a $3.5m impairment to goodwill charge and $1.3m in impairment to intangible assets of the supplier's igaming reporting unit, as a result of extended regulatory timelines that delayed revenues. [GN] PNC BANK: Court Modifies Class Certification Scope -------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting in part and denying Each Parties' Motion to Modify Certified Class in the case captioned TANSEER KAZI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PNC BANK, N.A., Defendant. Case No. 18-cv-04810-JCS. (N.D. Cal.) Before the Court is Each Parties' Motion to Modify Certified Class. Scheid contends that by effectively paying only incentive pay in months where mortgage loan officers (MLOs) qualified for it, PNC recaptured any pay for nonproductive time not spent selling loans, such as rest periods and training sessions, and thus failed to pay MLOs for that time. Scheid asserts the following claims, inter alia: (1) fail[ure] to provide paid rest periods or pay premium wages in lieu thereof as required by California Labor Code Section226.7 and certain wage orders, including waiting time penalties for class members whose employment ended during the class period, failure to pay for non-productive time as required by the California Labor Code and applicable wage orders, again including waiting time penalties for non-current employees. The Court previously granted in part a motion to certify a class of current or former mortgage loan officers (MLOs) represented by Plaintiff Linda Scheid1 asserting claims based on the purported failure of Defendant PNC Bank, N.A. (PNC) to compensate rest breaks as required by California law. Each party now moves to modify the certified class: PNC seeks to limit the class to MLOs employed through June 30, 2019 because PNC changed its compensation plan at that time and instituted an arbitration agreement for MLOs hired after that date, and Scheid seeks to expand the claims covered by the class definition to include failure to compensate training sessions in addition to rest breaks. There is no real dispute on any issue raised in PNC's motion. The parties agree that the class should be defined as encompassing claims only through June 30, 2019. The Court is satisfied that the materially different compensation plan instituted after that date renders any challenge to that plan sufficiently distinct from the claims raised here to defeat predominance, and that Scheid, who no longer worked for PNC at that time, would not be typical of MLOs raising such a challenge. The Court is also satisfied that Scheid, who did not sign an arbitration agreement, is not typical of MLOs hired after June 30, 2019, who were required to sign arbitration agreements. To be clear, the Court has no occasion on the present motions to consider whether PNC's compensation policies either before or after June 30, 2019 complied with California law, or whether the arbitration agreements signed by MLOs hired after that date are enforceable. It is enough that those questions present material differences between the claims at issue here and any claim that some other plaintiff might raise challenging PNC's post-June 30, 2019 compensation. PNC's motion to establish a June 30, 2019 end date is GRANTED. The Court previously limited class certification to claims based on statutory rest periods, holding that Plaintiffs had not shown common issues to predominate with respect to other categories of nonproductive working time. Scheid now seeks to expand the scope of certification to include claims based on time spent completing training sessions. The Court concluded that the record presented on Plaintiffs' previous motion suggested resolving these claims would require virtually a full trial for each MLO as to when and how they worked, what records they or PNC might have retained, whether the MLO remembers how long they spent in meetings and training sessions, and whether they recall working on selling loans during that time, because Plaintiffs had not met their burden to show whether representative or statistical evidence might provide an alternative method of proof in this particular case. The Court therefore declined to certify a class for claims based on nonproductive time other than rest periods, but left the door open for Scheid to file another motion pursuing certification of such claims. PNC's motion is GRANTED, Scheid's motion is DENIED, and the scope of class certification is modified to include claims based on PNC's alleged failure to pay for rest breaks from June 28, 2014 through June 29, 2019, and claims derivative of such a theory, with a class defined as all individuals who were employed by PNC as mortgage loan officers during that time. A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y79a2yr8 from Leagle.com PRO-SEAL USA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Barazal Claims ------------------------------------------------------- OSIEL BARAZAL; and LIVAN BARAZAL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRO-SEAL USA, INC.; and LONNIE BECUDE; Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-00467-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction workers. Pro-Seal Usa, Inc. is an insulation contractor that specializes in spray foam insulation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com PROCESSED EGG: 3rd Cir. Affirms Antitrust Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's Order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned IN RE: PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. T.K. RIBBINGS FAMILY RESTAURANT, LLC; JOHN A. LISCIANDRO, DBA Lisciandro's Restaurant EBY-BROWN COMPANY LLC; KARETAS FOODS INC., Appellants. IN RE: PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Rose Acre Farms, Inc, Appellant. Nos. 19-1088, 19-1188. (3rd Cir.) Plaintiffs appeal to the District Court's summary judgment in Defendants' favor. In this antitrust class action brought by egg purchasers, the plaintiffs claim that egg producers conspired to inflate prices through three stratagems: (1) early slaughtering of hens and similar supply-reducing steps (2) creation of an animal-welfare program that was actually designed to reduce the egg supply and (3) coordinated exports of eggs. Before the District Court, the plaintiffs argued that all three of those contrivances were part of a single overarching conspiracy that was anticompetitive per se and therefore unlawful under the Sherman Act. The defendants countered that the District Court should look at each alleged stratagem of the conspiracy separately and determine whether to apply the per se standard for antitrust liability or, instead, the more commonly applied rule of reason. In summary judgment briefing, the parties focused on one of the three alleged stratagems, and the District Court decided to evaluate it under the rule of reason. The case then proceeded to trial with all three stratagems being evaluated under that standard. The District Court entered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs' primary argument on appeal is that, contrary to the District Court's approach, the alleged conspiracy should have been evaluated under the standard of per se illegality rather than the rule of reason. The plaintiffs in the present case nevertheless contend that, because they alleged the defendants engaged in a single, overarching conspiracy, all of the defendants' conduct must be evaluated under a single standard and, given their allegations, it must be the per se standard. The plaintiffs evidently believe that, because they are masters of their complaint, they are also masters of the District Court in deciding the analytical approach to be taken in the case. Their power to dictate analysis and outcome is not what they wish it were. The plaintiffs' characterization of the defendants' conduct whether as a single overarching conspiracy or as three separate conspiracies does not determine how a court is to assess differing actions that the defendants are accused of taking. When different stratagems are alleged to have furthered an antitrust conspiracy, the court is free to determine which analytical standard should apply to each. It is possible that different aspects of an alleged conspiracy can have very different economic consequences, and that, accordingly, different standards should apply when assessing whether each has an unlawful anticompetitive effect. Were it otherwise, the rule of reason, which is supposed to be the widely applicable standard, could be relegated to the margins. A plaintiff with a bucket full of allegations about behavior rightly subject to the rule of reason could easily, by adding a single allegation of behavior that is anticompetitive per se, demand per se analysis of the whole. The District Court did not err in rejecting that kind of approach. Courts can consider the differing components of an alleged conspiracy separately when determining which mode of antitrust analysis to apply. The Certification Program Turning to the UEP Certification Program the one part of the alleged conspiracy that the plaintiffs have consistently argued should be subject to the per se mode of analysis The Appellate Court concludes that the District Court properly applied the rule of reason. The Certification Program was not an express agreement to reduce the supply of eggs, much less to fix prices. And, notwithstanding the plaintiffs' protestations, it is not clear that the Program would "have manifestly anticompetitive effects and lack any redeeming virtue, as must be the case for the per se rule to apply. Although the Program required increased cage space and so would lead to fewer hens in existing structures, the Program did not limit the number of hens or structures a producer could have, so producers could increase the number of hen houses and add more hens. And Rose Acre provided evidence that hens with more cage space produce more eggs. Similarly, the impact on the supply of eggs of a prohibition on backfilling is less than clear, as there is evidence that the prohibition prevents disease and social competition and allows hens to live longer and produce more eggs. Despite that, the plaintiffs argue for that standard, relying heavily on the rule that horizontal agreements among competitors to fix prices are illegal per se. According to the plaintiffs, because they allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to reduce the supply of eggs, the per se standard has to apply. But, as already indicated, the plaintiffs' choice of labels does not dictate the mode for assessing allegations and evidence. The District Court thoroughly considered the plaintiffs' complaint and the record and determined that there was not a horizontal agreement to reduce supply and fix prices. The Court was confronted with practices having far less certain motives and far more complicated economic consequences, and that quite rightly led to application of the rule of reason. That choice was correct. The District Court did an admirable job in addressing the myriad legal issues presented in this complex case and in presiding at trial. The plaintiffs' last-ditch effort to overturn their loss is unsupportable. For the reasons stated, the Appellate Court will affirm. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 22, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yau89kc7 from Leagle.com Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq. , Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch, 500 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10110, Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq. , Bernstein Liebhard, 10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 1001 Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. , Hausfeld, 1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650, Washington, DC 20006, Stephen R. Neuwirth, Esq. , Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq. [ARGUED], Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10010, Mindee J. Reuben, Esq. , Lite DePalma Greenberg, 1835 Market Street, Suite 2700, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Stephen D. Susman, Esq. , Susman Godfrey, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10019, Counsel for Appellants T.K. Ribbings Family Restaurant, LLC; John A. Lisciandro, DBA Lisciandro's Restaurant; Eby-Brown Company LLC; Karetas Foods Inc. Donald M. Barnes, Esq. , Jay L. Levine, Esq. [ARGUED], Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, 2020 K Street, N.W. Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006, James A. King, Esq. , Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, 41 South High Street, Suite 2900, Columbus, OH 43215, Leah A. Mintz, Esq. , Robert M. Palumbos, Esq. , Duane Morris, 30 South 17th Street, United Plaza, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Appellee Rose Acre Farms, Inc. Michael A. Lindsay , Dorsey & Whitney, 50 South Sixth Street — Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Counsel for Amicus National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. RCI HOSPITALITY: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and the individual defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the consolidated case is styled In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. In May and June 2019, three putative securities class action complaints were filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on alleged materially false and misleading statements made in the Company's SEC filings and disclosures as they relate to various alleged transactions by the Company and management. The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. These lawsuits are Hoffman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 21, 2019, naming the Company and Eric Langan); Gu v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 28, 2019, naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall); and Grossman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 28, 2019, naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall). The plaintiffs in all three cases moved to consolidate the purported class actions. On January 10, 2020, an order consolidating the Hoffman, Grossman, and Gu cases was entered by the Court. The consolidated case is styled In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841. On February 24, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated case filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, continuing to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In addition to naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall, the amended complaint also adds director Nour-Dean Anakar and former director Steven Jenkins as defendants. On April 24, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff's response to the motion was due June 23, 2020. The Company and the individual defendants will have the opportunity to file a reply in support of their motion by July 23, 2020. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. This action is in its preliminary phase, and a potential loss cannot yet be estimated. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates night clubs offering adult entertainment, restaurants, and bar operations in Texas and other locations in the United States. The Company, through its subsidiaries, also owns and operates media and websites related to their operations. The company is based in Houston, Texas. REALPAGE INC: Kelly Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN JOSEPH KELLY AND KARRIEM BEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. REALPAGE, INC., d/b/a On-Site and RP On-Site LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01706-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying this case as a class action. RealPage is an American multinational corporation that provides property management software for the multifamily, commercial, single-family and vacation rental housing industries.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. Edward H. Skipton, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-735-8600 Facsimile: 215-940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com eskipton@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Amy E. Tabor, Esq. CADDELL & CHAPMAN 628 East 9th Street Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: 713-751-0400 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com cbc@caddellchapman.com aet@caddellchapman.com - and - Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq. TATAR LAW FIRM 3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (323) 744-1146 Facsimile: (888) 778-5695 E-mail: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com RELIABLE KNITTING: Gonzalez Seeks Website Access for Blind Buyers ----------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RELIABLE KNITTING WORKS, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05211-LTS (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated blind consumers, alleges that the Defendant denies full and equal access of its website, www.muk-luks.com, to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant's website lacks a variety of features and accommodations for the Plaintiff and other blind consumers to browse products and services and potentially make a purchase including, but not limited to, the following: (1) website does not provide a text equivalent for every non-text element; (2) headings and labels do not describe topic or purpose; (3) keyboard user interfaces lack a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is visible; and (4) the human language of each passage or phrase in the content cannot be programmatically determined. These access barriers effectively denied the Plaintiff and Class members the ability to use and enjoy the Defendant's website the same way sighted individuals do. Reliable Knitting Works is a manufacturer of knitted fabric products with principal place of business in Campbellsport, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (929) 324-0717 E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Heath Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Drivers -------------------------------------------------------------- WALONA HEATH, et al, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1;20-cv-00125-LAG (M.D. Ga., July 7, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt transportation specialist/driver. Plaintiff claims that despite working in excess of 40 hours per week, Defendant did not properly compensate her pursuant to the FLSA. Allegedly, Defendant did not properly calculate Plaintiff overtime wage differential for numerous workweeks by failing to credit Plaintiff's hours worked while waiting for customers of Defendant, and excluding hours from Plaintiff's Sunday-Saturday workweek calculations if the pay period fell on a weekday when computing. Resource Management Systems, Inc. operates non-emergency transit systems in 15 countries in Southwest Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert M. Scott, Esq. J. Clint Wallace, Esq. SCOTT & WALLACE, LLP 209 E. Brevard Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tel: (850) 222-7777 Fax: (850) 222-7778 Email: rscott@scottandwallacelaw.com RICK SNYDER: Carthan Suit Seek to Certify Class & 3 Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Elnora Carthan, et al. v. Rick Snyder, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class and three damages subclasses pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(4): Class: "all current and former residents of the City of Flint who, for any period of time between April 25, 2014 and October 16, 2015, received drinking water supplied by the City of Flint regardless of whether the resident purchased the water from the City"; Minors Subclass: "all children who, during the period from May 1, 2014 to January 5, 2016, were (a) in utero or between the ages of 0 to 10 years old, (b) lived in an identified residence or attended an On October 26, 2017, the Court appointed Stephen E. Morrissey, Paul F. Novak, Esther Berezofsky, Peretz Bronstein, and Teresa A. Bingman as to serve as members of an Interim Executive Committee. ECF No. 234. Plaintiffs move for these interim appointments to be made formal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)"; Residential Property Subclass: "all persons and entities who, from April 25, 2014 to present, owned residential property within the City of Flint"; and Business Subclass: "all persons and entities, who, as of April 25, 2014 owned and operated a business within the City of Flint. As the Minors Subclass seeks injunctive relief in addition to damages, Class Plaintiffs also move for certification of the Minors Subclass under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)"; 2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class representatives; 3. appointing Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel Theodore J. Leopold and Michael L. Pitt as Co-Lead Class Counsel; and 4. appointing the Executive Committee to serve the Class. The Class Plaintiffs seek certification of a Class -- as well as Subclasses of Minors, Residential Property Owners, and Business Owners -- to obtain relief for tens of thousands of Flint residents who suffered injuries caused by the Flint Water Crisis. The tragic events that resulted in a community receiving unsafe water as well as the legal issues required to fairly assess the Defendants' liability are common to all the victims of this Crisis, as are many issues related to damages.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 220 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com - and - Michael L. Pitt, Esq. Cary S. McGehee, Esq. PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C. 117 West 4th Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 E-mail mpitt@pittlawpc.com cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com - and - Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. Kit A. Pierson, Esq. Emmy L. Levens, Esq. Jessica B. Weiner, Esq. Alison S. Deich, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com kpierson@cohenmilstein.com elevens@cohenmilstein.com jweiner@cohenmilstein.com adeich@cohenmilstein.com - and - Vineet Bhatia, Esq. Shawn Raymond, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 651-3666 E-mail: vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com sraymond@susmangodfrey.com - and - Stephen Morrissey, Esq. Jordan Connors, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P. 1201 Third Ave., Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com jconnors@susmangodfrey.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Shimon Yiftach, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com shimony@bgandg.com - and - Bradford M. Berry, Esq. Anson C. Asaka, Esq. NAACP 4805 Mt. Hope Dr. Baltimore, MD 21215 Telephone: (410) 580-5777 E-mail: bberry@naacpnet.org aasaka@naacpnet.org - and - Kathryn P. Hoek, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: khoek@susmangodfrey.com - and - Neal H. Weinfield, Esq. THE DEDENDUM GROUP Telephone: (312) 613-0800 E-mail: nhw@dedendumgroup.com - and - Cirilo Martinez, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CIRILO MARTINEZ, PLLC 3010 Lovers Lane Kalamazoo, MI 49001 Telephone: (269) 342-1112 E-mail: martinez_cirilo@hotmail.com - and - David J. Shea, Esq. SHEA AIELLO, PLLC 26100 American Drive, 2nd Floor Southfield, MI 48034 Telephone: (248) 354-0224 E-mail: david.shea@sadplaw.com - and - Mark L. McAlpine, Esq. Jayson E. Blake, Esq. MCALPINE PC 3201 University Drive, Suite 100 Auburn Hills, MI 48326 Telephone: (248) 373-3700 E-mail: mlmcalpine@mcalpinelawfirm.com jeblake@mcalpinelawfirm.com - and - Paul Novak, Esq. Diana Gjonaj, Esq. Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 3011 West Grand Boulevard, Suite 2150 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 800-4170 E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com dgjonaj@weitzlux.com gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com - and - Robin L. Greenwald, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com - and - Esther E. Berezofsky, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 667-0500 E-mail: eberezofsky@motleyrice.com - and - Teresa Caine Bingman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF TERESA A. BINGMAN, PLLC 120 N. Washington Square, Suite 327 Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (877) 957-7077 E-mail: tbingman@tbingmanlaw.com - and - William Goodman, Esq. Julie H. Hurwitz, Esq. Kathryn Bruner James, Esq. GOODMAN & HURWITZ PC 1394 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 567-6170 E-mail: bgoodman@goodmanhurwitz.com jhurwitz@goodmanhurwitz.com kjames@goodmanhurwitz.com - and - Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. LABELLE 221 N. Main St., Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 996-5620 - and - Trachelle C. Young, Esq. TRACHELLE C. YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC 2501 N. Saginaw St. Flint, MI 48505 Telephone: (810) 239-6302 E-mail: trachelleyoung@gmail.com - and - Brian McKeen, Esq. Claire Vergara, Esq. McKEEN & ASSOCIATES, PC 645 Griswold Street, Suite 4200 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 961-4400 E-mail: bjmckeen@mckeenassociates.com cvergara@mckeenassociates.com - and - Cynthia M. Lindsey, Esq. Shermane T. Sealey, Esq. CYNTHIA M. LINDSEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 8900 E. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 612 Detroit, MI 48214 Telephone: (248) 766-0797 E-mail: cynthia@cmlindseylaw.com shermane@cmlindseylaw.com - and - Andrew P. Abood, Esq. ABOOD LAW FIRM 246 East Saginaw Street, Suite One East Lansing, MI 48823 Telephone: (517) 332-5900 E-mail: andrew@aboodlaw.com RPA ENERGY: Faces Shelton TCPA Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing -------------------------------------------------------------- James Everett Shelton, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. RPA ENERGY INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05205 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020), seeks redress from the Defendant's illegal telemarketing activity that violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To generate new customers, the Defendant relies on telemarketing. The telemarketing that the Defendant engages in itself or through a vendor includes the use of pre-recorded messages. This action is brought under the TCPA alleging that the Defendant or a vendor on their behalf, sent him pre-recorded telemarketing calls for purposes of promoting their goods and services without his prior express written consent. Because these calls were transmitted using technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day, the Plaintiff sues on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons, who received similar calls. Plaintiff James Everett Shelton resides in Pennsylvania. RPA Energy is in the energy marketing business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com RUSSELL PLASTICS: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Rodriguez Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. RUSSELL PLASTICS TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03013 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020), is brought to recover statutory damages for violations of the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The Plaintiff says he regularly worked a workday that was longer than 10 hours from start to finish, including breaks. He alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him one additional hour's pay at the statutory minimum rate when he worked a day that was longer than 10 hours from its start to its finish, including breaks, pursuant to a company-wide payroll practice and policy that violate the NYLL. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid machine operator in the State of New York from August 2018 until June 23, 2020. The Defendant provides custodial services to department stores located throughout the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway, Suite B Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 Email: promero@romerolawny.com SAG-AFTRA: Risto Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Featured Artists --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as KEVIN RISTO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SCREEN ACTORS GUILD-AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ARTISTS, a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, a California nonprofit corporation; RAYMOND M. HAIR, JR, an individual, as Trustee of the AFM and SAG- AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund; TINO GAGLIARDI, an individual, as Trustee of the AFM and SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund; DUNCAN CRABTREE-IRELAND, an individual, as Trustee of the AFM and SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund; STEFANIE TAUB, an individual, as Trustee of the AFM and SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund; JON JOYCE, an individual, as Trustee of the AFM and SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund; BRUCE BOUTON, an individual, as Trustee of the AFM and SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Case No. (Filed ), the Plaintiff will move the Court on September 14, 2020, for an order certifying a class of: "all non-featured musicians and non-featured vocalists, their agents, successors in interest, assigns, heirs, executors, trustees, and administrators, entitled to royalties under the Copyright Act after July 22, 2013." While the Unions were directed to create the Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund as part of their Congressional mandate, the Fund is obligated to perform its duties without regard to union membership and for the sole benefit of its beneficiaries, which include both Union members and artists who are not Union members, like Mr. Risto. The Fund and its Trustees owe the exact same legal obligations and fiduciary duties to both Union and non-Union beneficiaries, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Kevin Risto is a beneficiary of the Fund and entitled to royalties as a non-featured artist for the song "When I See U," by Fantasia. Mr. Risto has also written and produced songs for other artists including Jennifer Lopez, 50 Cent, and Justin Bieber. Mr. Risto received a Grammy award for his work on Frank Ocean's "Channel Orange" album. Mr. Risto is not a member of the Unions. SAG-AFTRA is an American labor union representing approximately 160,000 film and television actors, journalists, radio personalities, recording artists, singers, voice actors, and other media.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Mariana A. McConnell, Esq. Nico l. Brancolini, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law mcconnell@kiesel.law brancolini@kiesel.law - and - Neville L. Johnson, Esq. daniel b. lifschitz, Esq JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP North Canon Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 975-1080 Facsimile: (310) 975-1095 E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com dlifschitz@jjllplaw.com SAGGIO RESTAURANT: Tacuri Seeks Damages for FLSA, NYLL Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Tacuri and Segundo Tacuri Quito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAGGIO RESTAURANT, INC., KALKIN NARVILAS, and PEDRO NARVILAS, as individuals, Case No. 1:20-cv-05219 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, including the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act, arising out of the Plaintiffs' employment. Although the Plaintiffs worked for 48 hours or more per week during their employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants at the Defendants' restaurant. SAGGIO RESTAURANT, INC., is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive office located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 SALLIE MAE BANK: Gilder Sues Over Discriminatory Background Check ----------------------------------------------------------------- Willie Gilder, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SALLIE MAE BANK, Case No. 1:20-cv-00923-UNA (D. Del., July 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a result of its discriminatory background check policy and practice. In late September 2017, the Plaintiff applied for the position of Collector I within Sallie Mae Bank. On October 27, 2017, the Plaintiff was interviewed by Sallie Mae Bank for the Collector I Position. On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff received an offer letter for the Collector I position in the APG Private Credit Department. Sallie Mae Bank's offer letter stated the Plaintiff's offer was "contingent upon passing a background check." Sallie Mae Bank's offer letter also provided the Plaintiff with an anticipated start date of November 20, 2017. The Plaintiff completed the steps necessary to register for Sallie Mae Bank's online background check. On November 9, 2017, the Plaintiff received a correspondence from Sallie Mae Bank, which listed his criminal background check and informed him information in the report may adversely affect his employment status. On November 30, 2017, the Plaintiff provided Sallie Mae Bank with court documents, which evidenced he was never convicted of dealing in cocaine, as well as a copy of a May 15, 2017 court order granting his petition for expungement for his arrest for dealing in cocaine. Sallie Mae Bank determined the Plaintiff's 2007 charge for possession of a controlled substance was expunged. On December 1, 2017, Mr. Gilder received a letter from Sallie Mae Bank rescinding his employment offer stating: "This decision was based, either in whole or in part, on information provided to us in a consumer report." The Plaintiff found out through Sallie Mae Bank's position statement submitted to the Delaware Department of Labor that he was not selected for the position with Sallie Mae Bank specifically based upon an outdated manslaughter conviction, which occurred approximately twenty-five years prior to his offer of employment with Defendant. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's manslaughter conviction does not have any bearing on the Plaintiff's ability to successfully perform in the position of Collector I, the position the Defendant hired him for. The Plaintiff's manslaughter conviction is not a crime of dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering, which would warrant automatic disqualification as set forth under Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The Plaintiff was a resident of Delaware. Sallie Mae Bank is located in Newark, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele D. Allen, Esq. Emily A. Biffen, Esq. ALLEN & ASSOCIATES 4250 Lancaster Pike, Suite 230 Phone: 302-234-8600 Fax: 302-234-8602 Email: michele@allenlaborlaw.com emily@allenlaborlaw.com SANCHEZ OIL: Hutchins' Conditional Certification Bid Okayed in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMES HUTCHINS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SANCHEZ OIL & GAS CORPORATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-00195-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Henry J. Bemporad entered an order granting, in part, and denying, in part, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice, as follows: 1. The putative class in this case is conditionally certified on the terms stated by the Court on the record. The Plaintiff must submit a proposed order, agreed as to form by the Defendant, specifically describing such class on or before July 17, 2020. 2. The parties must submit a Joint Advisory to the Court on or before July 17, 2020, setting out the status of the parties' efforts to identify putative class members, and whether formal discovery is required. 3. This case is set for a telephonic status conference to discuss notification of class members and related issues on August 14, 2020, at 10:30 A.M. At the designated start time of the conference, counsel are directed to dial 888- 363-4734, and when prompted to do so, enter Access Code 1223006 (and press #). SOG is a private company engaged in the management of oil and natural gas properties on behalf of its related companies. Headquartered in Houston, Texas, SOG's major areas of activity have historically been in the onshore Gulf Coast, Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions.[CC] SCHEER, GREEN: Young Sues Over Misleading, Unfair Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sally Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Scheer, Green, & Burke, Co. L.P.A. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-00297 (E.D. Tex., July 8, 2020), is brought to seek damages and relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act as a result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices. On July 10, 2019, the Plaintiff incurred an obligation. The Schumacher Clinical Partners obligation arose out of transactions in which money, property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household purposes. Schumacher Clinical Partners contracted Defendant SG&B to collect the alleged debt. On July 10, 2019, Defendant SG&B sent the Plaintiff an initial contact notice (the "Letter") regarding the alleged debt owed to Schumacher Clinical Partners. The entirety of the Letter implies that collection of this debt will be through litigation by the Defendant as a law firm and not merely as debt collection. This is implied by the heading of the Letter, and that the letter is signed by the "Law Offices of Scheer, Green, & Burke, Co. L.P.A." indicating that an attorney, rather than a debt collector is pursuing this collection, both implying that this is not a mere debt collection but rather the process of legal action. The Letter implies an attorney at law firm is involved and that this is part of an official, legal process. The Plaintiff notes that according to the Texas bar database, the Defendant is not a licensed law firm in the state of Texas. The Plaintiff contends that the letter is deceptive and misleading to the least sophisticated consumer, who would understand that at some point, the Defendant law firm will be involved in a legal action to collect the debt, which is false because the Defendant is not licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. Moreover, at no point does the Defendant state clearly that although the letter is from a lawyer, the lawyer is acting solely as a debt collector and not in any legal capacity when sending the letter. As a result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the complaint. Plaintiff Sally Young is a resident of the State of Texas. SG&B is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: 201-282-6500 ext. 101 Fax: 201-282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SCWORX CORP: Continues to Defend COVID-19 Rapid Test Kits Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- SCWorx Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company is facing several class action suits related to its April 13, 2020, press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits. On April 29, 2020, a securities class action case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its CEO. The action is captioned Daniel Yannes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel, Defendants. On May 27, 2020, a second securities class was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its CEO. The action is captioned Caitlin Leeburn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel, Defendants. On June 23, 2020, a third securities class was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and its CEO. The action is captioned Jonathan Charles Leonard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel, Defendants. All three lawsuits allege that the company and its CEO mislead investors in connection with its April 13, 2020 press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits. The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking unspecified monetary damages. SCWorx said, "We intend to vigorously defend against these proceedings." SCWorx Corp. provides software solutions for the management of health care providers' foundational business applications. The company is based in New York, New York. SCWORX CORP: Faces Leonard Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHON CHARLES LEONARD, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. SCWORX CORP. and MARC S. SCHESSEL, Case No. 1:20-cv-04777 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2020), is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired SCWorx securities between April 13, 2020 and April 17, 2020, inclusive, arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 13, 2020, SCWorx issued a press release entitled "SCWorx Announces First Installment of Purchase Order For 48 Million COVID-19 Rapid Testing Units Over Twenty-Four Weeks at $35 Million Dollars Per Week." On this news, the Company's share price skyrocketed from a previous close of $2.25 per share to $14.88 per share before later closing that day at $12.02 per share. The next morning, on April 14, 2020, Utopia Capital Research issued a report doubting the validity of the Company's announcement, calling it "ludicrous," "very difficult to believe," and questioning its management's credibility in connection with the previous day's press release and earlier claims. On this news, SCWorx common stock closed down 30% at $8.45 per share on April 14, 2020. The Plaintiffs contends that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: SCWorx's supplier for COVID-19 tests had previously misrepresented its operations. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff purchased SCWorx common stock during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the fraud. SCWorx describes itself as a provider of data content and services related to the repair, normalization, and interoperability of information for healthcare providers, as well as big data analytics for the healthcare industry. Shares of SCWorx's common stock trade on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker symbol "WORX." Marc S. Schessel was the Company's founder, CEO and Chairman of the Board.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ralph M. Stone, Esq. Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 1700 Broadway, 41st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 292-5690 Facsimile: (212) 292-5680 E-mail: RalphS@johnsonfistel.com MichaelF@johnsonfistel.com SIGNET JEWELERS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for July 21 ------------------------------------------------------------ Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that the settlement fairness hearing is currently scheduled for July 21, 2020. In August 2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its then-current Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Financial Officer (Nos. 16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the "S.D.N.Y. cases"). On September 16, 2016, the Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y. cases under case number 16-cv-6728. On April 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons that acquired the Company's securities on or between August 29, 2013, and February 27, 2017, naming as defendants the Company, its then-current and former Chief Executive Officers, and its current and former Chief Financial Officers. The second amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company's business and earnings by (i) failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly having issues ensuring the safety of customers' jewelry while in the Company's custody for repairs, which allegedly damaged customer confidence; (ii) making misleading statements about the Company's credit portfolio; and (iii) failing to disclose reports of sexual harassment allegations that were raised by claimants in an ongoing pay and promotion gender discrimination class arbitration (the "Arbitration"). The second amended complaint alleged that the Company's share price was artificially inflated as a result of the alleged misrepresentations and sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. In March 2017, two other alleged Company shareholders each filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and its then-current and former Chief Executive Officers (Nos. 17-cv-875 and 17-cv-923, the "N.D. Tex. cases"). Those complaints were nearly identical to each other and alleged that the defendants' statements concerning the Arbitration violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The N.D. Tex. cases were subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated with the S.D.N.Y. cases (the "Consolidated Action"). On July 27, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the Consolidated Action. On August 3, 2017, the Court ordered the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action to file a third amended complaint by September 29, 2017. On September 29, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended complaint that covered a putative class period of August 29, 2013, through May 24, 2017, and that asserted substantially similar claims to the second amended complaint, except that it omitted the claim based on defendants' alleged misstatements concerning the security of customers’ jewelry while in the Company's custody for repairs. The defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on December 1, 2017. On December 4, 2017, the Court entered an order permitting the lead plaintiff to amend its complaint as of right by December 22, 2017, and providing that the lead plaintiff would not be given any further opportunity to amend its complaint to address the issues raised in the defendants' motion to dismiss. On December 15, 2017, another alleged Company shareholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its current Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (No. 17-cv-9853). This complaint alleged that the defendants made misleading statements regarding the Company's credit portfolio between August 24, 2017, and November 21, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 7, 2018, this case was consolidated into the Consolidated Action. On December 22, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed its fourth amended complaint, which asserted substantially the same claims as its third amended complaint for an expanded class period of August 28, 2013, through December 1, 2017. On January 26, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint. This motion was fully briefed as of March 9, 2018. On March 20, 2018, the Court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a fifth amended complaint. On March 22, 2018, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed its fifth amended complaint which asserts substantially the same claims as its fourth amended complaint for an expanded class period of August 29, 2013, through March 13, 2018. The prior motion to dismiss was denied as moot. On March 30, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the fifth amended complaint. On November 26, 2018, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 15, 2019, the lead plaintiff moved for appointment of a class representative and class counsel and for certification of a class period of August 29, 2013, through March 13, 2018. On July 10, 2019, the Court granted the motion and certified a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Signet common stock from August 29, 2013 to May 25, 2017. The Court also appointed a class representative and class counsel. On May 9, 2019, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings with respect to certain alleged misstatements. On June 11, 2019, the Court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants moved for reconsideration on June 18, 2019. The Court denied that motion on June 20, 2019. On July 24, 2019, the defendants filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a petition for permission to appeal the District Court's class certification decision. On November 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals granted that petition. On November 20, 2019, the parties jointly moved to stay proceedings in the District Court while the appeal is pending. On November 21, 2019, the District Court granted that motion. On January 16, 2020, the lead plaintiff and defendants filed a joint stipulation in the Court of Appeals withdrawing the appeal without costs or attorneys' fees and providing that the defendants may reinstate the appeal by filing written notice by August 28, 2020. The Court of Appeals granted the stipulation on January 16, 2020. On March 16, 2020, the Company, all of the other defendant parties to the Consolidated Action, and the lead plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement in the Consolidated Action. The settlement of $240 million provides for the dismissal of the Consolidated Action with prejudice. The settlement agreement also states that the Company and all the other defendants expressly deny any and all allegations of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages whatsoever, and that defendants are entering into the settlement solely to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, and expense of further protracted litigation. As a result of the settlement, the Company recorded a charge of $33.2 million during the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2020 in other operating income (loss), which includes administration costs of $0.6 million and is recorded net of expected recoveries from the Company's insurance carriers of $207.4 million. As of May 2, 2020 and February 1, 2020, the liability related to settlement and administration fees was recorded in other current liabilities, and the expected insurance recoveries are recorded in other current assets in the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The settlement was fully funded in the second quarter of Fiscal 2021, and the Company contributed approximately $35 million of the $240 million settlement payment, net of insurance proceeds and including the impact of foreign currency. The settlement is subject to court approval at a fairness hearing, which is currently scheduled for July 21, 2020, following notice to the class. Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond jewelry, watches, and other products. Signet Jewelers Limited was founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda. SIGNET JEWELERS: Suit Against SJI Ongoing in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that SJI, a company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants") filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants' disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015, which SJI opposed. April 27, 2015, the arbitrator issued an order denying the Claimants' Motion. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015, which Claimants opposed. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the District Court's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which Claimants opposed. The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on November 2, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims, which SJI opposed. On June 15, 2015, the arbitrator granted the Claimants' motion. On March 6, 2017, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice, which SJI opposed The arbitrator heard oral argument on Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to the putative members of the collective action. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016, which Claimants opposed. On April 5, 2016, the arbitrator denied SJI's Motion. On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, which Claimants opposed. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016. On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which Claimant's opposed. On June 1, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed SJI's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration. The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5, 2016 and ordered into effect the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016, which Claimants opposed. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The motion was granted in part on January 27, 2017. Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on August 1, 2016. Approximately, 10,314 current and former employees submitted consent forms to opt in to the collective action; however, some have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid consents is disputed and yet to be determined. SJI believes the number of valid consents to be approximately 9,124. On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that the absent class members "never consented" to the Arbitrator determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members who had not opted in the litigation. On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class Determination Award relative to absent class members with the District Court. The matter was fully briefed, and an oral argument was heard on October 16, 2017. On November 10, 2017, SJI filed in the arbitration motions for summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants' Equal Pay Act and Title VII promotions claims. On January 30, 2018, oral argument on SJI's motions was heard. On January 26, 2018, SJI filed in the arbitration a Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award And Tolling Order asserting that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by conditionally certifying the Equal Pay Act claim and allowing the absent claimants to opt-in the litigation. On March 12, 2018, the Arbitrator denied SJI's Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award and Tolling Order. SJI still has a pending motion seeking decertification of the EPA Collective Action before the Arbitrator. On March 19, 2018, the Arbitrator issued an Order partially granting SJI's Motion to Amend the Arbitrator's November 2, 2017, Bifurcated Seventh Amended Case Management Plan resulting in a continuance of the May 14, 2018 trial date. A new trial date has not been set. On January 15, 2018, District Court granted SJI's August 17, 2017 Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class Determination Award finding that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by binding non-parties (absent class members) to the Title VII claim. The District Court further held that the RESOLVE Agreement does not permit class action procedures, thereby, reducing the Claimants in the Title VII matter from 70,000 to potentially 254. Claimants dispute that the number of claimants in the Title VII is 254. On January 18, 2018, the Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument before the Second Circuit occurred on May 7, 2018. On May 17, 2019, SJI submitted a Rule 28(j) letter to the Second Circuit addressing the effects of the Supreme Court's ruling in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (S. Ct. Apr. 24, 2019), on the pending appeal. The Second Circuit then issued an order directing the parties to submit additional arguments on that issue, which were submitted. On November 18, 2019 the Second Circuit issued an order reversing and remanding the District Court's January 15, 2018 Order that vacated the Arbitrator's Class Determination Award certifying for declaratory and injunctive relief a Title VII pay and promotions class of female retail sales employees. The Second Circuit held that the District Court erred when it concluded that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority in purporting to bind absent class members to the Class Determination Award. The Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to decide the narrower question of whether the Arbitrator erred in certifying an opt-out, as opposed to a mandatory, class for declaratory and injunctive relief. On December 2, 2019, SJI filed a petition for a hearing en banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On January 15, 2020, SJI filed a Rule 28(j) letter in the Second Circuit. On that same day the Second Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc. On January 21, 2020, Sterling filed its motion for stay of mandate with the Second Circuit pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 22, 2020, the Second Circuit granted Sterling's motion for stay of mandate. The petition for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on June 12, 2020. Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond jewelry, watches, and other products. Signet Jewelers Limited was founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda. SIMS GROUP: Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as SERGIO BERNAL-RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIMS GROUP USA CORPORATION, Case No. 4:20-cv-02121-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on July 29, 2020, for an order: 1. granting conditional certification and approving a 60-day opt-in period for this collective: "all individuals who are or previously were employed by the Defendant on an hourly basis and worked over 40 hours in a week at any time during the period beginning March 27, 2017 to the date the order granting this motion is entered; 2. requiring the Defendant to identify all potential opt-ins within 14 days of the grant of conditional certification by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, job titles, addresses, telephone numbers, e- mail addresses, dates of employment, location of employment, and date of birth, of each potential opt-in; and 3. approving proposed form of notice and authorizing it to be sent by U.S. Mail and e-mail to all potential opt-in plaintiffs, along with a shortened text message notifying each individual that the notice form was mailed and emailed, and a reminder notice via email and text to be sent 40 days thereafter to anyone that did not respond. Plaintiff Sergio Bernal-Rodriguez filed this case on March 27, 2020, in an effort to recover wages for Sims Group's alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff challenges the Defendant's company-wide policy and practice of failing to include shift differential payments in hourly workers' regular rate calculation, which is utilized to determine the hourly workers' overtime premium rates. The Defendant -- https://www.simsmm.com/ -- offers "a wide variety of services ranging from dismantling and demolition to collection and transport of scrap metal." The company owns and operates facilities and locations across the United States. According to the Defendant's website, it operates "over 250 facilities in North America, U.K., and Australasia.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS, APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: 248-355-0300 Facsimile: 248-436-8453 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com crash@sommerspc.com SIX SLICE: Bailey Seeks to Notify Class of Delivery Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as William Bailey, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Six Slice Acquisitions, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00432-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. authorizing himself to send notice of this action to: "all current and former delivery drivers employed at Defendants' Marco's Pizza stores between the date three years prior to filing of the original complaint and the date of the Court's Order approving notice. 2. approving the Plaintiff's proposed notices and methods of disseminating notice; 3. directing the Defendants to provide name and contact information for all potential opt-in plaintiffs within 14 days of the court’s order; and 4. authorizing a 90-day opt-in period. This is a wage-and-hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery drivers who work at Defendants' Marco’s Pizza franchise stores. Mr. Bailey alleges that the Defendants' pizza delivery drivers are all employed according to the same terms: -- they receive minimum wage minus a tip credit for all hours worked while completing deliveries; -- they drive their own cars to deliver the Defendants' pizzas; and -- they are not properly reimbursed for their delivery related expenses. The Plaintiff claims that these employment terms result in a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan Spencer, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Louise M. Roselle, Esq. Nathan B. Spencer, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC www.billerkimble.com 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com pkrzeski@billerkimble.com lroselle@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com STAMPS.COM INC: Karinski Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as MATT KARINSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. STAMPS.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01828-MWF-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff Indiana Public Retirement System will move the Court for an order: 1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); 2. appointing itself as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. Stamps.com is an American company that provides Internet-based mailing and shipping services. Stamps.com is a public company and trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol STMP.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven W. Pepich, Esq. Jason A. Forge, Esq. Eric I. Niehaus, Esq. Hillary B. Stakem, Esq. Kevin S. Sciarani, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: 619 231-1058 Facsimile: 619 231-7423 E-mail: stevep@rgrdlaw.com jforge@rgrdlaw.com ericn@rgrdlaw.com hstakem@rgrdlaw.com ksciarani@rgrdlaw.com STATE COLLECTION: Placeholder Class Cert. Sought in Watson Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as PHYLLIS WATSON and IRYNA ZAYIKA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01019-SCD (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order to certify class, appoint themselves as the class representative, and appoint their attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com STEINHOFF INT'L: Likely Near to Settling $11 Bil. in Legal Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Janice Kew of Bloomberg News reports that Steinhoff International Holdings NV is close to reaching a potential deal on 10 billion euros ($11 billion) of legal claims lodged against the global retailer following an accounting scandal that almost wiped out the company, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. South African claimants--including former Chairman Christo Wiese whose suit amounts to 59 billion rand ($3.5 billion)--have been offered a combination of cash and shares in Pepkor Holdings Ltd., one of the people said. It isn't immediately clear how much a settlement could amount to, the people said, asking not to be identified because talks are continuing and a deal may not be reached. Steinhoff owns 68% of Pepkor, Africa's largest clothing retailer. "I'm hopeful it will be soon," Wiese said by phone, without being more specific on the timing of a potential settlement or the offer. The 78-year-old has the biggest single claim against Steinhoff after becoming its largest shareholder when he sold Pepkor to the firm in 2015. "I wanted to get around the table and do a settlement as soon as we could, and now it's dragged on for three years." The longer talks take, the more legal fees stack up, Steinhoff Chief Financial Officer Theodore de Klerk said in an interview. He declined to comment on when a settlement could be reached or details of an offer. Lawsuits replaced debt as Steinhoff's most pressing concern after the retailer struck a deal with creditors to skip principal and interest payments on its borrowings through 2021. Steinhoff's shares collapsed in late 2017 when the owner of Conforama in France and Pep stores in Europe and Africa became locked in a battle to survive following allegations that the company orchestrated transactions to artificially boost its profits and asset values. "It's clear we're not going to pay, in full, 10 billion euros of legal claims in cash," De Klerk said. "It's not right and we can't do that." Steinhoff is pressing hard and is "making progress" in reaching a settlement with claimants such as Wiese and various class-action lawsuits brought by investors and others who lost out when the shares slumped, he said. That's as it is trying to mitigate fees it is incurring. It may also use its South African assets to help reduce debt or settle claims, De Klerk said. Shares Gain "Part of our challenge is not only agreeing multiple-type issues across jurisdictions with different legal claims, but also trying to time them at the same time," he said. "We're in continuous talks with people, but we can't settle with just one, so we have to do what we call a ‘global settlement' or else it's not going to work." Shares in Steinhoff rose 24% in Frankfurt, the most since April 14, while volumes traded were almost twice that of the three-month average. Pepkor declined 0.6% in Johannesburg Armand Kersten, head of European relations at Vereniging van Effectenbezitters, the Dutch firm leading a class-action lawsuit against Steinhoff in the Netherlands, declined to comment. Pepkor declined to comment. [GN] STITCH FIX: Website Unaccessible to Blind Users, Tenzer-Fuchs Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE TENZER-FUCHS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STITCH FIX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03076-JS-ST (E.D.N.Y., July 9, 2020) is a civil rights action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its company website in a way that is fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who suffers from what constitutes a "qualified disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and thus requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The complaint asserts that Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, www.stitchfix.com, and the resulting denial of equal access to the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Defendant's website contains various and multiple access barriers that make it extremely difficult - if not impossible - for blind and visually-impaired consumers to attempt to complete a transaction. Stitch Fix, Inc. is an American personalized style service and clothing retailer catering to both men and women. Stitch Fix is an online retailer of men and women's clothing, footwear, jewelry, and other accessories, featuring a wide variety of both established and up-and-coming brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 971-9474 E-mail: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com SUBARU: Starlink Lawsuit Settlement Granted Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that a Subaru Starlink lawsuit has been granted final approval for former and current lessees and owners of these models equipped with Starlink infotainment systems manufactured by Harman International. 2017-2018 Subaru Impreza 2018 Subaru Outback 2018 Subaru Forester 2018 Subaru Legacy 2018 Subaru Crosstrek 2018 Subaru BRZ The class action lawsuit alleges the infotainment systems suffer from numerous problems, including the following conditions. Backup cameras freeze Failures of the radios Failures of the main head units Nagivation errors and failures Display screens that go black The Subaru Starlink lawsuit alleges multiple additional problems, all that cause drivers to become distracted while coping with alleged failures of the infotainment systems. Subaru denies all the allegations made in the Starlink lawsuit but failed to convince the judge to dismiss the class action. However, at least 155 owners opted out of the settlement agreement. Affected owners can read details of the Starlink lawsuit settlement here, but the agreement provides an extended warranty for up to five years or 100,000 miles for the infotainment systems. The automaker will also reimburse customers for certain out-of-pocket expenses related to the Starlink systems. According to the settlement, a customer who made two dealer visits may be eligible for $150 and three or more visits may get a customer $300. If a customer had to wait for their Starlink system to be repaired, it's possible to receive $16 for each day they had to wait. In addition, Subaru has agreed to reimburse a customer up to $90 to cover rental car expenses while the Subaru vehicle was at dealership. Attorneys for the plaintiffs will receive $1.5 million. The Subaru Starlink lawsuit was originally filed in the Camden County New Jersey Superior Court but was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: Udeen, et al., v. Subaru of America, Inc. The plaintiffs are represented by Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Motley Rice LLC, and Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer. CarComplaints.com has owner-reported complaints about the Subaru vehicles. [GN] SUNCREST BUILDERS: Nevada High Court Affirms Rotes Case Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Supreme Court of Nevada has affirmed the District Court's judgment granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the litigation against Suncrest Builders et al. The appellate case is captioned PAUL D. ROTES; AND CATHERINE C. ROTES, Appellants, v. SUNCREST BUILDERS, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION; GREGORY G. BISCHOFF, INDIVIDUALLY; VICKI P. BISCHOFF, INDIVIDUALLY; 430 MAHOGANY, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; STANLEY J. PESNER, INDIVIDUALLY; AND LILA PESNER, INDIVIDUALLY, Respondents. No. 76180. (Nev.) This is an appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution under NRCP 41(e)'s five-year rule. This appeal arises from a construction defect lawsuit. Appellants Paul and Catherine Rotes purchased a home in Reno in 2008 and thereafter discovered that their property suffered from various construction defects. The Roteses initiated NRS Chapter 40's construction defect pre-litigation process and, following failed attempts at settlement, filed their complaint against Suncrest. The district court's NRCP 41(e) order concluded that the August 2015 continuance did not prevent the parties from prosecuting the case, but simply required all third parties to be joined before a new date for trial would be set. The Roteses argue that the district court's August 2015 continuance prevented them from bringing the case to trial until Suncrest joined third-party subcontractors to the underlying action. The Roteses argue that it was procedurally impossible for them to join third-party subcontractors, and urge the court to treat the August 2015 continuance as an effective stay of proceedings that prevented them from moving forward with their claims. The Supreme Court is not persuaded that the parties' stipulation to continue and the court's August 2015 continuance tolled the five-year rule in this case. The Supreme Court articulated an exception to NRCP 41(e)'s five-year rule in Boren, 98 Nev. at 5-6, 638 P.2d at 404, holding that where a trial court prohibits the parties from going to trial, it is so obviously unfair and unjust as to be unarguable for the trial court to dismiss the action for failure to bring the case to trial. Under Boren, any period during which the parties are prevented from bringing an action to trial by reason of a stay order shall not be computed in determining the five-year period of Rule 41(e). For several reasons, the Boren exception does not apply the Roteses' case, the High Court said. According to the High Court, the Boren exception does not apply because the district court's August 2015 order was not a stay order; it was explicitly an Order to Continue Trial. Any misapprehension about whether the order was a stay or a continuance should have been remedied when, nine months later, the district court ordered the Roteses to show cause why the action should not be dismissed under NRCP 41(e) for failure to prosecute. The High Court also noted Roteses affirmatively represented that the August 2015 continuance did not prevent them from moving forward with prosecuting their case. In their filings with the district court, they recognized the nine-month delay between the August 2015 continuance and the district court's order to show cause, accepted their responsibility for moving the case forward in light of NRCP 41(e), and requested that the district court not dismiss the action but allow them to continue prosecution of the case. According to the Supreme Court, given their explicit representations to the district court, the Roteses cannot argue that the August 2015 order had any practical effect of preventing them from moving forward with prosecuting their case, thereby relieving them of their duty to carefully track the crucial procedural dates and to actively advance the case at all stages, a duty that may require the plaintiff to take initiative and prod the district court when the case sits dormant. The High Court also held that the Roteses misinterpret D.R. Horton, 131 Nev. 865, 358 P.3d 925, for the proposition that any time spent participating in the NRS Chapter 40 process should be automatically excluded from the calculation of NRCP 41(e)'s five-year deadline. D.R. Horton does not reach as broadly as the Roteses urge and does not support their argument. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's December 19, 2019 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx3tuvb5 from Leagle.com TAKATA CORP: CarMax Gets $40.3MM in Airbag Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company received $40.3 million in net recoveries from the Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, BMW, Honda and Nissan settlement funds, being a class member in the consolidated and settled class action lawsuit, entitled, In re: Takata Airbag Product Liability Litigation. The company is a class member in a consolidated and settled class action lawsuit (In re: Takata Airbag Product Liability Litigation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida)) against Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, BMW, Honda, Nissan and Ford related to the economic loss associated with defective Takata airbags installed as original equipment in certain model vehicles from model years 2000-2018. On April 10, 2020, the company was informed that CarMax would receive $40.3 million in net recoveries from the Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, BMW, Honda and Nissan settlement funds. On April 15, 2020, the company received that amount in settlement of this matter and recorded the gain. CarMax remains a class member for the Ford settlement fund. CarMax said, "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of gain that could result from CarMax's participation in the Ford settlement fund." CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order in Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated January 28, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled In Re: Actos Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-3278, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Takeda's request to certify for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), the Sept. 30, 2019 Opinion and Order filed in In re Actos End-Payor Antitrust Litigation, No. 13-cv-9244 ("EPP Order"), and the Oct. 8, 2019 Opinion and Order filed in In re Actos Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 15-cv-3278 ("DPP Order"). Takeda filed its motion to certify an interlocutory appeal under Section 1292(b) in both cases on Nov. 22, 2019. The indirect purchasers ("End-Payor Plaintiffs" or "EPPs") and the direct purchasers ("Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs" or "DPPs") together filed an opposition on Dec. 13, 2019, and Takeda filed its reply on Dec. 24, 2019. In the Orders, the Court denied Takeda's motion to dismiss the monopolization claims asserted against it, holding that the Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Takeda engaged in anticompetitive behavior by falsely representing to the FDA that its '584 and '404 patents in connection with the ACTOS NDA were accurately described in the Orange Book as drug product patents for the ACTOS NDA. The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Actos Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 20-2002, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Meijer, Inc.; Meijer Distribution, Inc.; American Sales Company, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; Cesar Castillo, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, are represented by: Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 475-1950 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com Defendants-Appellants Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda America Holdings, Inc., Takeda Pharamceuticals, 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 TERRAFORM POWER: Still Faces Dearborn Police & Rosson Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- TerraForm Power, Inc. continues to defend itself against the consolidated derivative and class action lawsuit of Martin Rosson and the City of Dearborn Police and Retirement System, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On September 19, 2019, lead plaintiff Martin Rosson filed a derivative and class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of the Company, himself, and other minority stockholders of the Company against Brookfield and certain of its affiliates (including the Company as a nominal defendant). The complaint alleges that the defendant controlling stockholders breached their fiduciary duty to minority stockholders because the Company undertook a private placement of the Company's stock on terms that the complaint alleges are unfair, instead of pursuing a public offering. The proceeds of this private placement were used to fund the acquisition by the Company of Saeta and had been approved by the Conflicts Committee of the Company's Board of Directors. The complaint seeks the rescission and invalidation of the private placement and payment to the Company of rescissory damages, among other relief. In a related development, on October 15, 2019, the Company received a demand letter for the production of books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 220 to allow counsel to the City of Dearborn Policy and Retirement System (a purported shareholder of the Company) to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty by Brookfield and the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the funding of the acquisition of Saeta. On January 27, 2020, the City of Dearborn Police and Retirement System filed a derivative and class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of the Company, itself, and other minority stockholders of the Company against Brookfield and certain of its affiliates (including the Company as a nominal defendant) alleging claims similar to those set forth in the Rosson complaint. The City of Dearborn Police and Retirement System and Martin Rosson agreed, with the consent of the Company and Brookfield, to consolidate their respective claims and such consolidation was approved by the Court during the first quarter of 2020. TerraForm said, "While the Company believes that these claims are without merit, it cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of any proceedings brought in connection with these claims." TerraForm Power, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates clean power generation assets. The company was formerly known as SunEdison Yieldco, Inc. and changed its name to TerraForm Power, Inc. in May 2014. TerraForm Power, Inc. was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in New York, New York. TILRAY INC: Still Defends Consolidated Braun Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------- Tilray, Inc. continues to defend itself against the class action and derivative suit styled, Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0137-KSJM, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. A nearly identical case styled, Bouvier v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0154-KSJM, was consolidated into this case in March. On February 27, 2020, Tilray stockholders Deborah Braun and Nader Noorian filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0137-KSJM. On March 2, 2020, Tilray stockholders Catherine Bouvier, James Hawkins, and Stephanie Hawkins filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Bouvier v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0154-KSJM. The two complaints are nearly identical, were filed by the same group of counsel, and name Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael Blue, Maryscott Greenwood, Michael Auerbach, and Privateer Evolution, LLC (as successor to Privateer Holdings, Inc.) as defendants and Tilray as a nominal defendant. On March 4, 2020, the Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating the two cases and designating the complaint in the Braun/Noorian action as the operative complaint. The operative complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Kennedy, Groh, Blue, and Privateer Evolution (the "Privateer Defendants") for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in their capacities as Tilray's controlling stockholders and against Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in their capacities as directors and/or officers of Tilray in connection with the Downstream Merger. The operative complaint alleges that the Privateer Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing Tilray to enter into the Downstream Merger and Tilray's Board to approve that Downstream Merger, and that Defendants Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach breached their fiduciary duties as directors by approving the Downstream Merger. Plaintiffs allege that the Downstream Merger gave the Privateer Defendants hundreds of millions of dollars of tax savings without providing a corresponding benefit to Tilray and its minority stockholders and that the Downstream Merger unfairly transferred and extended Kennedy, Blue, and Groh's control over Tilray. The defendants believe the claims in these cases are without merit, and intend to defend these cases vigorously, but there are no assurances as to their outcome. Tilray, Inc. engages in the research, cultivation, production, and distribution of medical cannabis and cannabinoids. The Company is focused on medical cannabis research, cultivation, processing and distribution of cannabis products worldwide. The company is based in Nanaimo, British Columbia. TILRAY INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suits in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Tilray, Inc. continues to defend itself against related securities suits, including two class actions, in New York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020. On March 6, 2020, Plaintiff Chad Ganovsky filed a securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Tilray, Inc., Brendan Kennedy and Mark Castaneda, on behalf of himself and a putative class, seeking to recover damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ganovsky v. Tilray, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-cv-01240. The complaint alleges that Tilray and the individual defendants overstated the anticipated advantages of the Company's revenue sharing agreement with Authentic Brands Group ("ABG"), announced on January 15, 2019, and that the plaintiffs suffered losses when Tilray's stock price dropped after Tilray recognized an impairment with respect to the ABG deal on March 2, 2020. On May 4, 2020, a nearly identical lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Ganesh Kasilingam in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging claims under the same federal securities law provisions, against the same defendants, on behalf of the same class, based on the same factual allegations. Kasilingam v. Tilray, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-cv-03459. The defendants believe the claims in both lawsuits are without merit, and intend to defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome in either case. Furthermore, on April 10, 2020 a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of New York by Chad Gellner, Matthew Rufo, and Melvyn Klein, derivatively on behalf of Tilray, Inc., that piggy-backs on the initial securities class action. Gellner, et al. v. Kennedy, et al., Case No. 20-c-01768. It names the members of the Company's Board of Directors and Mark Castaneda as defendants. The theory of the lawsuit is that the board failed to prevent the alleged securities law violations asserted in the securities class actions. The Company and the individual defendants believe that the shareholder derivative claims too are without merit, and intend to defend vigorously, but there are no assurances as to the outcome. Tilray, Inc. engages in the research, cultivation, production, and distribution of medical cannabis and cannabinoids. The Company is focused on medical cannabis research, cultivation, processing and distribution of cannabis products worldwide. The company is based in Nanaimo, British Columbia. TIM HORTONS: Sued for Tracking Mobile App Users ----------------------------------------------- Caleb Chen of PrivateInternetAccess' Privacy News Online reports that Tim Hortons is facing a class action lawsuit for its data collection practices--which include tracking your GPS location through their mobile app even when the app was turned off. This privacy violating behavior was not properly disclosed by the company's privacy policy. While most people know Tim Hortons as the Canadian morning coffee brand of choice for those addicted to sipping hot caffeine, they are now being called out for their mobile app's lack of respect for privacy. The lawsuit is being filed by two law firms out of Quebec: LPC Advocat Inc. and Consumer Law Group and follows the announcement of a formal investigation by the federal Privacy Commissioner as well as commissioners from Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia. Tim Hortons will stop tracking your location when you aren't using their app Faced with the lawsuit and privacy investigation, the company has decided to stop tracking location data when the app isn't on--though they are still maintaining that they only ever did so from customers that had given that express permission. A Tim Hortons' executive commented to The Financial Post: "We recently updated the Tim Hortons app to limit the collection of location data to only while guests have our app open, even if a guest has selected ‘Always' in their device settings." The fact though, is that Tim Hortons did this to potentially millions of users for many months and was not up front about it. Even if the disclosure in the privacy policy were accurate, Tim Hortons still may be on the hook for violating users' privacy. Anna Cavoukian, a former privacy commissioner for Ontario, doesn't believe that customer permissions were well informed enough to count. She told The Financial Post: "No one had the expectation that this information was being collected and retained--the cell phone geolocation data. It's absurd to think that people were consenting to that." Tim Hortons location slurping habit was discovered through investigative journalism Tim Hortons location slurping habit was discovered by James McLeod of The Financial Post. McLeod publicized the information after requesting a copy of all the data Tim Hortons parent company had stored using his rights under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) request. He noted that the app started sending location information when the app wasn't open in Spring of 2019. That coincides perfectly with when Tim Hortons started working with Radar Labs Inc.--an American company that specializes in tracking the users of apps that work with Radar Lab. Other notable companies that work with Radar Labs include Burger King. In his data, McLeod found that Radar Labs was using the Tim Horton's app's location permissions to make a log of every time McLeod visited a potential competitor such as Starbucks. Other insights that McLeod was able to garner from the dump of data include the fact that Radar Labs used the location data to determine where his home was, and if he was there or traveling. In talking with Tim Hortons, McLeod was able to confirm that there are other third parties that get access to tracked data and insights and that Radar Labs holds onto the information for a whole year, as well. Thanks to McLeod's initial investigative piece for The Financial Post, Tim Hortons has now stopped the activity and will likely face consequences from the government and on the civil front. Still, this type of data harvesting is commonplace and likely still being used by other name brand restaurant apps. Most people don't think twice about granting location data to a food delivery app; however, it's important to know that doing so can lead to this type of situation. Now, both Android and iOS have ways for users to set more granular permissions and enforce that an app can only access location data while it is open. For the many users of such apps that don't have these settings turned on, now is the time to check. [GN] TOTAL GAS: Long Beach Appeals Decisions in Antitrust Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff City of Long Beach filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion dated June 8, 2020, and Judgment dated June 9, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled City of Long Beach v. Total Gas & Power North America, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-8725, 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 lawsuit alleges that the Defendants engage in conduct that unreasonably restrained the markets for trading natural gas and natural gas-related contracts which set the monthly index prices for four major western U.S. trading hubs, published by Natural Gas Intelligence's Bidweek Survey and Mc-Graw-Hill Platts Inside FERC Gas Market Report, and by which Total Gas acquired and maintained monopoly power over the setting of such Monthly Index Prices between July 1, 2009, and July 31, 2012. According to the complaint, Total Gas entered into natural gas-related term contracts--usually called "swap" contracts by FERC--which settled based on the "Monthly Index Prices" which were calculated by Platts and NGI based on numerous next-month fixed price natural gas transactions at specific natural gas trading locations executed during the last five trading days of the month preceding the designated pricing month (known as "bidweek"), as reported to NGI and Platts. Total Gas then proceeded to intentionally manipulate the Monthly Index Prices in whichever way--up or down--that benefited the Monthly Index swap contracts it held relating to the specific location, by buying or selling, generally at a loss and at artificial money-losing prices, large quantities of the underlying next-month fixed price contracts for natural gas at that location during bidweek on which the next month's Monthly Index Prices for that location were calculated. The appellate case is captioned as City of Long Beach v. Total Gas & Power North America, Inc., Case No. 20-2020, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant City of Long Beach, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Solomon B. Cera, Esq. CERA LLP 595 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 977-2230 E-mail: scera@cerallp.com Defendants-Appellees Total Gas & Power North America, Inc., Total, S.A., and Total Gas & Power Limited, are represented by: Jason Joel Fleischer, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 887-3737 E-mail: jfleischer@gibsondunn.com - and - Brad Louis Schoenfeldt, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4083 E-mail: bschoenfeldt@gibsondunn.com TRANSCANADA USA: Court Certifies Inspectors' Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as TERRY O'QUINN v. TRANSCANADA USA SERVICES, INC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00844 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Joseph R. Goodwin entered an order: 1. partly granting and partly denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration; 2. granting motion to sever and stay the claims of Opt-in Plaintiffs Craig Cypert, Chad Copley, Charles Copley, and Larry Krone; 3. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of Class, on behalf of: "all Inspectors employed by, or working on behalf of, TransCanada who were classified as independent contractors and paid a day rate with no overtime at any time in the past 3 years"; 4. issuing a separate Order containing instructions regarding the issuance of court-supervised notice; 5. denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss; 6. directing the Clerk to post a copy of this published opinion on the court’s website, www.wvsd.uscourts.gov. 7. directing the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. Judge Goodwin says, "I will limit my consideration to the first phase of the section 216(b) inquiry: whether Plaintiff and other proposed class members are "similarly situated" enough to preliminarily certify a class. A proposed class is "similarly situated" for the purposed of the initial inquiry when the plaintiff shows "that putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan that violated the law." The standard employed by the court in deciding if the employees are similarly situated is a "fairly lenient standard." At this stage in the proceedings, factual distinctions between putative class members, such as, (1) having different supervisors, (2) having different job duties, (3) working in facilities as distinct locations, and (4) difference is amount paid, are not fatal to a motion for conditional class certification in an FLSA action. See Mondragon v. Scott Farms, Inc. Transcanada operates as a energy company. The company produces and supplies energy.[CC] TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces Jones FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems Inc. The case is captioned as Shawna Jones, Individually, and on behalf of similarly situated consumers v. Transworld Systems Inc., doing business as TSI, Case No. 2:20-cv-05509-CBM-KES (C.D Cal., June 22, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regarding consumer credit. Transworld provides receivables collection and management services. The Company focuses on commercial, education, financial, government, healthcare, and other industries in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neda Farah, Esq. NEDA FARAH LAW OFFICES 1115 South Elm Drive, Suite 511 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 666-3786 E-mail: neda@nedafarahlaw.com TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Dismissal of Wrongful Foreclosure Suit Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit has issued an Opinion affirming the District Court’s dismissal of litigation against several lending companies over alleging illegal foreclosure. The appellate case is captioned STEVEN D. FODGE, Individually and as representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons; Joseph E. CAREY, Individually and as representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons; JON A. TOKAY, Individually and as representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons; PAMELA R. JEFFCOAT, Individually and as representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons; ANDREW J. KALTENMARK, Individually and as representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons; LANCE K INOVEJAS, Individually and as representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons; DEBORAH A. INOVEJAS, Individually and as representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C.; BARKSDALE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, L.L.C.; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. No. 19-30279 (5th Cir.) Appellants appeal from the district court's orders granting Appellees’ motions to dismiss and Appellee Trustmark National Bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Appellants brought a putative class action at the district court, alleging that they and similarly situated individuals were on active duty with the military when Appellees variously foreclosed on their properties through executory proceedings in Louisiana state courts based on mortgage, privilege, or security agreements each plaintiff and putative class member had entered with one of the defendants. Appellants conceded that each of their agreements contained a clause importing a confession of judgment. Nonetheless, Appellants alleged that Appellees' foreclosure actions were in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), which provides active duty servicemembers with protections against default judgment absent a waiver that meets certain requirements. Appellants argued that (1) the state court orders authorizing seizure and sale of Appellants' respective properties through executory proceedings constitute default judgments under the SCRA, and (2) they did not waive their right to SCRA protections against default judgment because their confessions of judgment do not constitute proper waivers under the SCRA. According to the Appeals Court, Appellants' argument that the state court orders authorizing seizure and sale of Appellants' respective properties constitute default judgments under the SCRA is unavailing. Appellants argue that SCRA Section 3911's definition of judgment applies to SCRA Section 3931. Section 3911 defines judgment as any judgment, decree, order, or ruling, final or temporary. This definition, even if relevant to Section 3931, is unavailing, the Appeals Court said. Section 3931 states that it applies to proceedings in which the defendant does not make an appearance. Appellants necessarily made an appearance at the respective executory proceedings through their confessions of judgment. Under Louisiana law, an executory proceeding is an expedited in rem civil action. Louisiana law defines such proceedings as those which are used to effect the seizure and sale of property, without previous citation and judgment, to enforce a mortgage or privilege thereon evidenced by an authentic act importing a confession of judgment, and in other cases allowed by law. Thus, Section 3931 does not apply to Louisiana executory proceedings where, as here, the debtors have confessed judgment. In fact, Appellants conceded this, the Appeals Court pointed out. In opposing Bank of America's motion to dismiss, Appellants agreed 100% that Section 3931 does not apply to proceedings enforcing valid confessions of judgments. Appellants also argued that they did not waive their right to SCRA protections against default judgment because their confessions of judgment do not constitute proper waivers under the SCRA. This argument is moot, the Court said. Section 3931 does not apply to Louisiana executory proceedings where the debtor has confessed judgment. SCRA's waiver requirements are therefore inapplicable because there is nothing to waive here; Appellants were never protected under Section 3931 against seizures and sales ordered through Louisiana executory proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals’ December 19, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/su8tsul from Leagle.com John Scogin Odom, Jr.- john.odom@jodplaw.com - for Plaintiff-Appellant. William Frederick Ray , The Emporium Building, 400 East Capitol Street, P.O. Box 650, Jackson, MS 39205, for Defendant-Appellee. Stephen Winthrop Rider - srider@mcglinchey.com - for Defendant-Appellee. Anthony Joseph Rollo, Jr.- arollo@mcglinchey.com - for Defendant-Appellee. Thomas George Yoxall - tyoxall@lockelord.com - for Defendant-Appellee. W. Scott Hastings - shastings@lockelord.com - for Defendant-Appellee. TURNING POINT: Reynolds Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTINA MARY REYNOLDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TURNING POINT HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01935-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting certification of the proposed Class. Turning Point operates a restaurant chain. The Company offers breakfast, brunch, coffee, milk shakes, teas, appetizers, and lunch.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225 Malvern, PA 19355 Telephone: 610-822-3700 Facsimile: 610-822-3800 E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com rgray@cwglaw.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Matthew D. Brady, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA Telephone: 412 322-9243 Facsimile: 412 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com eciolko@carlsonlynch.com mbrady@carlsonlynch.com TWIN CITY: Denies Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, Zagafen Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZAGAFEN BALA, LLC, VK TAVERN, LLC, VINTAGE KOSHER, LLC, and REAL FRESH, INC., D/B/A PAGANO'S RESTAURANT & BAR, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-03033-PD (E.D. Pa., June 23, 2020), arises from the denial of insurance coverage. The Plaintiffs say they made timely claims but were denied business income coverage by Twin City. Twin City, as well as its parent Hartford, has, on a wide-scale and uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds for losses suffered due to any executive orders by civil authorities that have required the necessary suspension of business, and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the suspension of business and continue operations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were forced to suspend or reduce business at their location due to orders issued by civil authorities in Pennsylvania mandating the suspension of business for on-site services to prevent potential exposure to COVID-19. The Plaintiffs were also required to take necessary steps to prevent further damage and minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. The Plaintiffs' insured premises did not experience any known presence of, suspected presence of, or exposure to the COVID-19 virus. Zagafen owns a kosher dairy restaurant. Tavern owns a kosher meat restaurant known as Citron & Rose. Vintage Kosher operates a kosher wine and spirits shop. Pagano's, a "food emporium" in Center City Philadelphia, offers breakfast and lunch each day, Monday to Friday, with a gourmet cafe, live entertainment and a full bar. Zagafen Plaintiffs are each Pennsylvania limited liability companies. Twin City is a property and casualty insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. Mark R. Rosen, Esq. Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. Meghan J. Talbot, Esq. Stephen R. Basser, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 UNILEVER US: Court Denies Pardini Motion for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as KYM PARDINI, et al., v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 4:13-cv-01675-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order on July 10, 2020: 1. denying a motion for class certification; and 2. granting motions to strike the expert declarations. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs fail to show that they purchased the particularly mislabeled Product within the limited operative time or that they looked for the allegedly missing asterisk statement. Further, the Plaintiffs' consumer survey does not address the asterisk claim. The Plaintiffs have not produced evidence that they read and relied upon the "0g fat" statement on the front label or that they turned over the Product to search on the back label for the "asterisk statement" giving the more nuanced explanation near the ingredients list as required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The asterisk disclosure below the ingredient panel should have indicated that soybean oil and sweet cream buttermilk contain a "dietarily insignificant amount of fact." However, no named Plaintiff testified that she looked for the missing asterisk on the back label or even read the ingredients list fully. It is clear that the Plaintiffs did not indicate that the missing statements would have impacted their purchases. The Plaintiffs allege that the labels on the Defendant's I Can't Believe It's Not Butter Spray (Product) during a six-month period from December 2009 to May 2010 failed to contain an asterisk next to the "0g fat per serving" representation that the Product may contain an ingredient that "adds a trivial amount of fat." This failure to add the clarifying asterisk and ingredient information was, the Plaintiffs allege, in violation of the Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act and related regulations which require that the asterisk and explanation by the ingredients list be included where there is a representation of zero fat. The Plaintiffs Kym Pardini and Carrie Wood are consumers who bring this putative class action against the Defendant, a buttery topping spray manufacturer.[CC] UNITED STATES: Fed. Cl. Endorses OK of $137MM Deal on Quapaw Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- A review panel of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims recommends approval of a $137,500,000 settlement of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma's claims in the case captioned THOMAS CHARLES BEAR, et al., Claimants, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 13-51X. (Fed. Cl.). The Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah) is a federally recognized Indian tribe that presently resides in Oklahoma, near that state's border with Kansas. The claims at issue all relate to the federal government's historical management of the Tribe's trust. Claimants allege equitable claims and damages in seven categories: Claimants' Damages Claim Claimants' Assertions Improper Conveyance of the Catholic Forty lands $597,942 Mismanagement of Quapaw agricultural land $86,832,078 Destruction of natural resources on the Quapaw lands $243,329,000 Mismanagement of Quapaw town lot leases $235,120,028 Mismanagement of Quapaw mining leases $4,609,419,382 Mismanagement of Quapaw chat leases $614,257,250 Failure to collect royalties from the Ottawa chat pile $18,955,256 Failure to manage sooner chat pile interests $1,738,702.93 ------------------ Total $5,810,249,638.93 Among other things, the Quapaw Tribe claims that the United States conveyed 40 acres of the Tribe's land to the Catholic Church without compensating the Tribe. The Quapaw Tribe and individual members further claim that: -- the United States mismanaged Quapaw agricultural land by allowing the deposit of mining wastes on the land and failing to charge fair market rents for agricultural land; and -- contamination and subsidence from Government-authorized and Government-regulated mining destroyed the natural resources on approximately forty square miles of Quapaw allotted land. Individual members of the Quapaw Tribe claim that the United States mismanaged Quapaw town lots by allowing the deposit of mining wastes on those lots and failing to charge fair market value for town lot leases. The Individual members of the Quapaw Tribe also claim that the United States issued mining leases for lead and zinc on Quapaw lands for below-market royalties and failed to obtain any royalties at all for germanium and sulfuric acid mined from Quapaw land. Eventually, the parties were able to negotiate a compromise and settlement of the Plaintiffs' claims. The parties agree that it would be fair, just and equitable to pay the Claimants a total sum of $137,500,000 for the extinguishment of all claims asserted. The parties have agreed to bear their own attorneys' fees, costs, expenses and other expenses. The Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims assigned Judge Thomas Wheeler as the hearing officer in the Bear v. United States, No. 13-51X case. In the fall of 2019, just before a scheduled trial, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement. On Dec. 3, 2019, the hearing officer issued a report concluding that the proposed settlement is fair and equitable. A review panel, designated by the chief judge, has reviewed the report of the hearing officer and record in the case. Upon reviewing the hearing officer's report, the review panel adopts the findings of fact in totality, finding no error. Further, the panel adopts the hearing officer's conclusions of law in their entirety. Accordingly, the panel adopts the findings and conclusions of the hearing officer and recommends to the House of Representatives that the claimants be awarded and paid a total sum of $137,500,000 for the extinguishment of all claims actually or potentially included within the terms of H.R. 5862. Further, the parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees, costs, interest, and other expenses. A full-text copy of the January 9, 2020 Report of the Review Panel is available at https://is.gd/N4Wo5m from Leagle.com. THOMAS CHARLES BEAR, GRACE M. GOODEAGLE, PHYLLIS ROMICK KERRICK, JEAN ANN LAMBERT, FLORENCE WHITECROW MATHEWS, ARDINA REVARD MOORE & TAMARA ANNE ROMICK PARKER, Plaintiffs, represented by Terry Joe Barker , Barker Woltz & Lawrence, 2431 E 61st St., Ste 200, Tulsa, OK 74136-1242 EDWINA FAYE BUSBY, FRAN WOOD, individually and on behalf of similarly situated Members of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (the O-Gah-Pah), & QUAPAW TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, (O-Gah-Pah), a federally recognized Indian nation, Plaintiffs, represented by Nancie Gail Marzulla , Marzulla Law, LLC, 1150 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 USA, Defendant, represented by Frank James Singer , U.S. Department of Justice. Before the Review Panel, Charles F. Lettow; Patricia E. Campbell-Smith; and Nancy B. Firestone. USC: Choi Seeks Refund of Tuition & Fees Due to COVID-19 Closure ---------------------------------------------------------------- INJUNE DAVID CHOI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:20-cv-05573-AB-PD (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2020), is brought on behalf of all persons, who paid tuition and/or fees to attend the University for an in-person, hands-on education for the Spring 2020 semester, Summer 2020 semester, and any future semester where their course work moved to online learning. Such persons paid all or part of the tuition for this semester and mandatory fees that include a Student Health Service fee of $366, a Student Programming Fee of $64, and a Norman H. Topping Student Aid Fund of $8 (Mandatory Fees). Students may have incurred additional fees based on whether they were a freshman or transfer student, or depending upon which program they were enrolled in, says the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that the University has 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 University's response to COVID-19 pandemic, by mid-March, the University ceased or severely limited any of the services or facilities the Mandatory Fees were intended to cover. The Plaintiff seeks, for himself and Class members, the University's disgorgement and/or appropriate compensatory damages in return of the pro-rated portion of its tuition 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 University switched to online distance learning, strongly encouraged students to leave campus, and closed or ceased access to facilities and services. Injune David Choi is a citizen of California. He paid to attend the Spring 2020 semester at the University of Southern California as an undergraduate student. The University of Southern California is California's oldest private research university founded in 1880.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eddie Jae K. Kim, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 117 East Colorado Blvd., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: 619-762-1910 Facsimile: 412-231-0246 E-mail: ekim@carlsonlynch.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edward w. Ciolko, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: 412 322-9243 Facsimile: 412 231-0246 E-mail: gynch@carlsonlynch.com eciolko@carlsonlynch.com VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Class Cert. Proceedings Stayed in "Ureda" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MARK UREDA, v. VALENTINE & KEBARTAS LLC, ET AL., Case No. 20‐CV‐1018 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin granted Plaintiff's request to stay further proceedings on the motion for class certification. On July 7, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. The plaintiff has 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., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), 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." Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. Valentine and Kebartas provides collection services to public and private sector clients.[CC] VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Ureda Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MARK UREDA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. VALENTINE & KEBARTAS, LLC and LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01018-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as class counsel. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Investigating Investor Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: VRCA). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at [email protected] or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980. The investigation concerns whether Verrica and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. Click https://form.jotform.com/pomerantzllp2/VRCA to join the class action. On June 29, 2020, Verrica announced that it received a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") as part of the FDA's ongoing review of the Company's New Drug Application for VP-102 (cantharidin 0.7% topical solution), Verrica's lead product candidate for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum. According to the Company, the letter cited deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments at this time. While Verrica stated that the letter did not specify any particular items, it noted that the FDA's periodic requests for additional information pertained to chemistry, manufacturing, and control aspects of the drug-device combination. The Company also stated that its ability to address the requests had been "significantly impacted" by COVID-19 disruptions. Following this announcement, Verrica's stock price fell $3.06 per share, or 21.75%, to close at $11.01 per share on June 30, 2020. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. Contact: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP Tel: 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 Web site: www.pomerantzlaw.com/ [GN] WAL-MART: Court Narrows Employment Discrimination Claims -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant Walmart Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned KERI BRAGG et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00231. (S.D.W.V.) Pending before the Court is Defendant Walmart Inc.'s (Walmart) Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs Roberta Crites and Tammy Harrison (Plaintiffs) filed this action alleging Defendant discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of their sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges the following two causes of action: (1) disparate treatment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and (2) disparate impact discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The parties previously agreed to dismiss Plaintiffs' Count II claim for disparate impact. Additionally, in her response, Crites withdraws her unequal pay claims Accordingly, Plaintiff Roberta Crites' claim for disparate treatment pay discrimination is DISMISSED. Only Crites' claim for disparate treatment promotion discrimination, and Harrison's claims for disparate treatment promotion discrimination and disparate treatment pay discrimination remain. Defendant seeks summary judgment on all remaining claims. Each argument is addressed in turn. Disparate Treatment Discrimination Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's. The Act prohibits overt discrimination, referred to as disparate treatment discrimination, and also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation, referred to as disparate impact discrimination. Crites' Failure to Promote Claim Here, the record provides little to no direct or indirect evidence of discriminatory intent. Further, for the majority of these promotions, Crites states only that she was denied the promotion without an interview. She relies solely on the denial of those promotions as evidence of discrimination and has produced no other corroborating evidence. Crites does allege she applied for the support manager position at the Spencer, West Virginia, Store in both April and July of 2015. However, her only evidence of discriminatory intent is that, in both circumstances, a male employee was hired for the position. Crites argues she was qualified for both the 2010 and 2011 asset coordinator job because she was employed by Walmart since October 11, 1999, and had ten to twelve years of asset protection experience at the time of her application. While the Court notes that Crites has provided limited evidence regarding her employment history and the similar status of the male applicants, the Fourth Circuit has emphasized that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous. Thus, Crites satisfies the relatively easy test that she was a qualified applicant who was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. However, Walmart has articulated legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for why Maynor and Eaton were hired instead of Crites. Maynor had law enforcement experience working as a Forest Ranger with the West Virginia Division of Forestry and was an Asset Protection Associate from May 2008 till his promotion in January of 2010. In contrast, Defendant states Crites had a history of leaving and returning to the asset protection division. Between 1999 and 2010, Crites held eleven different positions and was transferred out of the asset protection division three different times. Further, Defendant states that Eaton held extensive managerial retail and asset protection experience prior to working in Defendant's stores and held the positions of Warehouse Projects Manager/Commercial Sales Manager at Surface Foods; General Manager at Subway; and Assistant Manager/Asset Protection at Blockbuster Video. With regards to Crites' promotion claim, Crites argues that Walmart's reasoning is simply based on guesses and are merely speculations as to why Crites was not promoted. These arguments have no merit. As discussed above, Walmart has successfully articulated a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for hiring Maynor and Eaton. On the other hand, Crites failed to provide any statements, records, or personal knowledge to support her claims. Thus, Crites has failed to prove a set of facts to enable this Court to conclude that Walmart's failure to promote her was motivated by discrimination. Accordingly, summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff Roberta Crites' disparate treatment in promotions claim. Harrison's Failure to Promote Claim Harrison alleges she was discriminated against based on her gender when she was denied five to six promotions between 2003 and 2006. To meet her burden, Harrison must provide direct evidence of discriminatory intent or establish a prima facie case under the burden-shifting scheme. First, Harrison states that her Store Manager, Chris Rockenstein, stated she could not be promoted within the same store, but male employees George Skinner and Danny Baisin were promoted within the South Charleston Store where they both worked. These are the only allegations Harrison provides. Even assuming these bare bones allegations could establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Harrison fails to address any of Walmart's legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons provided in support of these promotions. First, Walmart states that an employee named Danny Baisin does not exist. Walmart's records show that a male Assistant Store Manager named Danny Baisden did work at the South Charleston, West Virginia, Store with Harrison, but the two never applied for any of the same Co-Manager positions. Further, Baisden did not receive a promotion to a Co-Manager position until March of 2008, which was over a year after Harrison voluntarily resigned. Harrison does not address these facts. Next, Walmart alleges Skinner was selected as a Co-Manager of the South Charleston, West Virginia, Store in July of 2005. Skinner worked as an Assistant Store Manager at two other Walmart Stores for almost three years and had worked in a management position at a Walmart Store and a Sam's Club for over a year. Further, Skinner had received a most recent performance evaluation of a 4 out of 5, and Harrison's evaluation was only a 3.5 out of 5. Again, Harrison does not attempt to rebut any of Walmart's factual assertions. Accordingly, summary judgment is GRANTED with regards to Plaintiff Tammy Harrison's failure to promote claims as it pertains to both Skinner and Baisin. Next, Harrison was told by her District Manager, Eddie Bostic ("Bostic"), and her Store Manager, Rockenstein, that she would be promoted to Co-Manager if she went to Ashland, Kentucky, to open a new store. (ECF No. 100 at 9.) Once she completed her work in Ashland, she was called into a meeting with Bostic, Rokenstein, and a male employee, Lewis Taylor. The managers stated that Taylor was being promoted to Co-Manager instead of Harrison because he had four children and another on the way. Harrison was also told that her husband had a good job. Harrison told Bostic and Rockenstein that Taylor's promotion was discrimination, and she took Rockenstein's comment about her husband having a good job as meaning that it is a man's job to provide for a family. Harrison argues that Rockenstein's comments during this meeting are direct evidence of discriminatory intent. Here, Store Manager Rockenstein's comments about Taylor receiving the promotion to provide for his family and his reference to the male employees as the boys club cast doubt on the legitimacy of Walmart's explanation. Since Rockenstein was involved in promoting Taylor, there is a potential that he considered Harrison's gender in his decision. Further, Walmart's policies required employees to have a performance evaluation of 3.5 or higher, among other qualifications, to be eligible for a promotion. In 2003, Harrison alleges that District Manager Stewart Bunker lowered her performance evaluation from a 3.8 to a 3.44 because he thought no female employee would exceed his expectations. From Walmart's own statements, the performance evaluations played a role in determining which employee was chosen for the promotion. Thus, Harrison has successfully established a prima facie case of gender discrimination. At a minimum, there is an issue of fact surrounding Rockenstein's comments and the context of his statements. Accordingly, the Court DENIES summary judgment on Harrison's failure to promote disparate treatment claim as it pertains to Lewis Taylor. Harrison's Pay Discrimination Claim In her Amended Complaint, Harrison alleges she was paid less than Greg Blackburn (Blackburn), Tom Harvey (Harvey), Danny Baisin (Baisin), and Lewis Taylor (Taylor), while all were employed as Assistant Store Managers. The Court notes that Harrison does not mention Blackburn, Harvey, or Baisin in her response and appears to abandon her claims against these male competitors. Harrison does mention Baisin but only in reference to her failure to promote claim. As a result, the Court will only focus on Harrison's pay discrimination claim as it relates to Taylor. Assuming these allegations are sufficient to support a prima facie case of discrimination, Walmart has articulated legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for why Taylor was paid at different rates than Harrison. Walmart states that Plaintiff fails to recognize that Taylor and Harrison both came to the same store with different employment histories and, thus, differing pay rates. In April 2004, Harrison and Taylor both worked as Assistant Store Managers at the South Charleston Store and reported to Store Manager Rockenstein. Walmart states that Taylor earned more than Harrison because, during that time, Taylor's performance evaluations were higher. For example, Taylor was earned performance evaluations of 3.9 of 5 and 4 of 5, which is higher than Harrison's evaluations of only 3.5 of 5. As a result of this, Walmart states Harrison received a five percent merit increase, while Taylor received a six percent increase. Thus, the burden now shifts back to Harrison, and she must present evidence that Walmart's explanations are not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination. Accordingly, summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff Tammy Harrison's disparate treatment in pay claim. Plaintiffs' Pattern or Practice Claim Finally, Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs pattern or practice claim because this type of claim may only be asserted in a class action. Plaintiffs do not respond. In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege there is a pattern in compensation where women who held hourly positions were paid less than similarly-situated men, despite the women having more seniority and higher performance ratings. The Fourth Circuit has held that claims alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination can only be asserted in class actions, and not by individual plaintiffs. Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint could be understood as alleging a pattern or practice claim, that claim is DISMISSED. The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the issues of (1) Crites' disparate treatment in promotions claim (2) Harrison's disparate treatment in promotions claim against Skinner and Baisin; and (3) Harrison's disparate treatment in pay claim. Summary judgment is DENIED IN PART on Harrison's failure to promote disparate treatment claim as it pertains to Lewis Taylor. In addition, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs' pattern or practice claim. Plaintiff Roberta Crites' claim for disparate treatment in pay was voluntarily dismissed. Thus, only Plaintiff Tammy Harrison's failure to promote disparate treatment claim as it pertains to Lewis Taylor remains. A full-text copy of the District Court’s June 22, 2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ccyq8s from Leagle.com WALMART INC: Ceballos-Birney Alleges Mislabeling of Infant Meds --------------------------------------------------------------- JOANNA CEBALLOS-BIRNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case 3:20-cv-01224-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal., June 30, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's advertisements, marketing representations, and placement of acetaminophen products for children. According to the complaint, the Defendant distributes its own brand of pain reliever and fever reducer under the "equate" label, including Infant's Pain & Fever Acetaminophen - equate ("Infant's Products") and Children's Pain & Fever Acetaminophen - equate ("Children's Products"), two well-known brand-name Over The Counter ("OTC") medications. The Defendant's advertisements, marketing representations, and placement of the Products in its brick-and-mortar stores are misleading, untrue, and likely to deceive reasonable consumers. Defendant purposely packages Infant's Products with distinctive and colored lettering of the word "infant's" on the product's front-label, while packaging Children's Products with distinctive and colored lettering of the word "Children's" on the product's front-label. Accordingly, Defendant distributes, markets, and sells the Products in a manner which deceives reasonable consumers into thinking that infants cannot safely take Children's Products. Furthermore, despite the fact that the Products contain the same exact amount of acetaminophen in the same dosage amounts, the Defendant markets and sells Infant's Products to consumers, such as the Plaintiff, at a substantially higher price than Children's Products. In stores, the Infant's Products cost approximately three times more per ounce than Children's Products for the same amount of medicine. Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler, games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party supplies, and automotive tools. Walmart serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Naveed Abaie, Esq. PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com nabaie@pswlaw.com WARDEN REHERMAN: Hague Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MARYAM HAGUE, et al. v. WARDEN REHERMAN, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00389 (S.D. W.Va.), Ms. Maryam Hague asks the Court for an order: 1. granting her motion for class certification: First Class: "medically vulnerable inmates at Alderson Federal Prison Camp seeking an immediate review for release to home confinement pursuant to the The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, without a restriction applied for time remaining on sentence and expanding the qualifying risk factors to all indicated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including immunocomprising and chronic health conditions"; The Subclass: "all inmates at Alderson who seek fro the Federal Bureau of Prisons officials to dramatically reduce the population"; 2. appointing herself as class representative; and 3. appointing class counsel. On June 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking an injunction for home confinement pursuant to The CARES Act. The Plaintiffs contend that their conditions of confinement violate their eight amendment rights making them vulnerable to contracting a severe case of COVID-19, or possibly death.[CC] WELLPET LLC: Zeiger Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DANIEL ZEIGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WELLPET LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-04056-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Daniel Zeiger will move the Court on November 18, 2020, for an order certifying these classes: -- Wellness Class: "all persons in California who, from July 1, 2013, to the present, purchased Wellness Complete Health Adult Dry Whitefish and Sweet Potato dog food for household or business use, and not for resale"; -- Wellness Grain-Free Class: "all persons in California who, from July 1, 2013, to the present, purchased Wellness Complete Health Adult Grain Free Whitefish and Menhaden Fish Meal dog food for household or business use, and not for resale"; and -- Core Class: "all persons in California who, from July 1, 2013, to the present, purchased Wellness CORE Adult Dry Ocean Whitefish, Herring Meal and Salmon Meal dog food for household or business use, and not for resale." Excluded from the classes are persons or entities who purchased the Wellness Food for business use or resale; government entities; WellPet and its affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, current and former officers, directors, agents, and representatives; and members of this Court and its staff. In the alternative, the Plaintiff moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.23(c)(4) for certification of a liability-only class or certification of common issues. This case exemplifies the power of a product's labeling and packaging. WellPet has sought to capitalize on the ever-growing and lucrative market of health-conscious pet lovers who consider their pets as family. According to the complaint, in order to benefit from the known buying preferences of these pet parents, WellPet uses everything in its arsenal -- from its company name (WellPet) and its food brand (Wellness) to various promises and statements -- to deceive the consumer and promote that its dog food is high quality, healthy, nutritious, and safe. But customers have no way of knowing that WellPet's foods do not live up to its packaging because there is no disclosure of the presence (or risk thereof) of lead, arsenic, or Bisphenol A in the foods. This is not inconsequential, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff's choice-based conjoint analysis, reveal that WellPet's affirmations and omissions are material to the reasonable consumer, and drive up the cost of the dog food. The Plaintiff Zeiger seeks certification of classes of California consumers damaged by WellPet's deceptive labeling and packaging in violation of California's consumer protection laws and common law. WellPet is a pet food company formed by the combination of Wellness Natural Pet Food, Holistic Select Natural Pet Food, Eagle Pack Natural Pet Food and Old Mother Hubbard Natural Dog Snacks, purchased by Berwind Corporation.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com - and - Kevin A. Seely, Esq. Steven M. McKany, Esq. ROBBINS LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsllp.com kseely@robbinsllp.com arifkin@robbinsllp.com smckany@robbinsllp.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Raina C. Borelli, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com rborelli@gustafsongluek.com - and - Charles Laduca, esq. Katherine Van Dyck, esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com kvandyck@cuneolaw.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com scruzhodge@litedepalma.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Michelle Perkovic, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com mp@wexlerwallace.com WELLS FARGO: Fails to Give Apt Repossession Notices, Sorace Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Sorace, Joseph Yerty, Tammy Yerty, James Zaronsky, Linda Zaronsky, Viktor Stevenson, Ashley Yates, and Kimberly Solomon-Robinson, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 200700334 (Pa. Com. Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., July 7, 2020), is brought to seek monetary relief in the form of minimum statutory damages, which is expressly permitted "regardless of any injury that may have resulted," through the Uniform Commercial Code, independently and in pari materia with the Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act, due to the Defendant's systematic failure to comply with the strict requirements relating to Post-Repossession Consumer Disclosure Notices. According to the complaint, the Notices of Repossession at issues stated that the repossessed vehicle would be sold at a "private sale." This material statement regarding intended disposition (public or private sale) of these vehicles was systematically not true. All the repossessed vehicles of these named Plaintiffs were sold at the Manheim Auction, which is a public auction. Wells Fargo systematically failed to inform the Public Auction Class Members that their vehicles were being sold at a public sale and the date and time of that sale as required by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs has vehicles repossessed by the Defendants (or its agent) in Pennsylvania. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., is a federally chartered bank and is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC 6550 Lakeshore St. West Bloomfield, MI 48323 Phone: (248) 562-1320 Phone: (888) 769-1774 Email: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com WEST VIRGINIA: Court Certifies County Ballot Commissioners Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DAKOTA NELSON; BELINDA BIAFORE, individually and as Chairperson of the West Virginia Democratic Party; ELAINE A. HARRIS, individually and as Chairperson of the Kanawha County Democratic Executive Committee; WEST VIRGINIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY; and WEST VIRGINIA HOUSE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, v. MAC WARNER in his official capacity as West Virginia Secretary of State; and VERA MCCORMICK, in her official capacity as Clerk of Kanawha County West Virginia, Case No. 3:19-cv-00898 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert C. Chambers entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion and certifying the Defendant class consisting of: "all county ballot commissioners in West Virginia to ensure statewide declaratory and injunctive relief against the challenged law"; 2. appointing the defendant McCormick as the class representative and her counsel, Bailey & Wyant, PLLC, as class counsel. 3. directing counsel for the Plaintiffs, McCormick, and Warner to meet and confer and agree upon a class notice to be mailed to each class member within seven days of this Order. The class notice must advise each class member of this suit, that the Court declared class action status, and that the class includes all county ballot commissioners for the state of West Virginia.; and 4. directing the Clerk to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order to all counsel of record. The Court agrees with the plaintiffs that joining all ballot commissioners is prudent here because state law requires each commissioner to enforce the Ballot Order Statute. Certifying the proposed class is an effective means for ensuring statewide relief if the Court finds the Statute is unconstitutional. The Court therefore finds the plaintiffs' motion is properly directed at all 165 ballot commissioners and finds this proposed class easily satisfies numerosity.[CC] WESTGATE RESORTS: Hambacker Balks at Marketing of Timeshares ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN HAMBACKER, et al. v. WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., L.P. a/k/a WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC., WESTGATE RESORTS, INC., WESTGATE GV SALES & MARKETING, LLC, WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, LLC, and CFI RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00833-RWS (E.D. Mo. June 23, 2020), sues over the Defendants' high-pressure scheme that involves convincing prospective purchasers to buy into its vacation timeshare program while failing to adequately disclose material and legally required information to buyers. Through this scheme, the Defendants (a) fail to adequately provide legally required disclosures and (b) fail to provide purchasers with adequate access to their timeshares, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs contend that as a result of the common scheme, Westgate owners are left paying thousands of dollars in purchase price, upgrade costs, and annual maintenance fees, all on timeshare units they are frequently unable to use as advertised, and rarely, if ever, are able to use as reasonably expected. The U.S. timeshare industry was founded in the early 1970s, a period of economic stagnation and soaring energy costs, when hotel and resort developers struggled to sell full ownership condominium properties. Instead of selling an actual condominium, developers realized, they could sell "ownership shares" to many customers, each of which theoretically gives an owner the right to use the property (or a similar property) for certain amounts of time per year. The Plaintiffs include VERONICA HAMBACKER, MARK BERLINGERI, SUSAN BERLINGERI, STEPHAN BILSKI, KATHY BILSKI, JAMES BLACKSTON, DEBRA BLACKSTON, ROSETTA BLEDSOE, GREGORY BORGE, TERRY BOWMAN, MELINDA BOWMAN, VERNE BRADY, CINDY BRADY, CARLOS BRAGA, BETSY BRAGA, MARION BRONSON, LENA BRONSON, JAMES BROWN, JAMES BROYLES, SHEILA BROWN, PATRICK CANNING, COLLEEN CANNING, HOWARD CAPEK, MARTHA CAPEK, DALE CARDEN, WANDA CARDEN, CHARLES CASH, JR., JULIA CASH, CHANTAL CHAPOTEAU, ERICA CHARLES, AUBREY CHARLES, NEWTON CHRISTMAN, BARRY CLAY, LENA CLAY, LARRY CLEVERINGA, MARILYN CLEVERINGA, RALPH COCHRAN, LINDA COCHRAN, FLORENCE COLEMAN, JAMES COLLIER, ALVA COLLIER, ELMO COOK, MATHELDA COOK, KEVIN COOK, SHELIA COOK, MICHAEL COX, PAMELA COX, WILLIAM CREAGAN, ROSALIND CREAGAN, ANTHONY CREST, BARBARA CRIST, SAMUEL CRUM JR., MONA CRUM, PATRICIA DAMRON-ROBINSON, JEFFERY DAMRON-ROBINSON, GEORGE DANBURY, CATHERINE DANBURY, LINDA DANIEL, DAVID DARLING JR., ROBERT DASH, DONNA DASH, RANDOLPH DAVIS, JEANNE DAY, TIMOTHY LUDDEN, ARTHUR DELBENE, THOMAS DEWITT, PAULINE DEWITT, AHMET DIRICAN, JOHN DOUGHERTY, SYLVIA DOUGHERTY, ROBERT DOWNING, BONNIE DOWNING, JANIECE DRASSLER, ERMA DUKES-ELLIS, WALTER EARL, KAREN EARL, MICHAEL ECTOR, SUZETTE ECTOR, HARMON EDMOND, SHIRLEY EDMOND, MARK FARBER, TERESA FARBER, RICKEY FARR, LYNN FARR, JOHNNY FENDER, KELLIE FENDER, MARQUIES FIELDS, JOSEF FILA, MARY FILA, RANDALL FILGER, CAROLYN FILGER, BARBARA FOLEY, CELESTINE FRAZIER, ADDIE FREYTAG, JOSEPH GAGLIANO, LORENE GAGLIANO, JOEL GARHARTT, ROSE GARHARTT, PRISCILLA GIBSON, ANGELA MARCOUX, TIMOTHY GIBSON, SHERRI GIBSON, LARRY GORDON, JAN GORDON, NORMA GORMAN, FRANCIS GORMAN, JOHN GREENE, FRANCES GREENE, ROBERT GRUBER, EUGENIA GRUBER, DOUGLAS GUERNSEY, MICHELLE GUERNSEY, JAMES GUTILLO, PATRICIA GUTILLO, DAVID HANAUER, ELIZABETH HANAUER, JOSEPH HARRAH, LORI HARRAH, CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, SHARMAN GINGRICH, ELIZABETH HARTMAN, CLAUDETTE HASKINS, JEROME HAYNES, JANET HAYNES, WENDELL HILL, CAROLYN HOLLOWAY, JOEL HOLST, LAURA HOLST, GARY HORTON, NATIVIDAD HORTON, DELMER HUFFMAN, PATRICIA HUFFMAN, JUANITA HUGHES, LARRY JACOBS, JEWEL JACOBS, SIDNEY JANISE, JOHN JANSEN, KAREN JANSEN, WILLIS JONES, DORIS JONES, ROBIN JORDAN, JAY KASDORF, PATRICIA KASDORF, JAMES KELLY, PATRICIA KELLY, KENNETH KEYS, EDITH KEYS, MATTHEW KRAATZ, DIANA KRAATZ, ROBERT LARSON, JOSEPH LEE, DOREEN LEE, HELENA LETSCH, ANN LEWANDOWSKI, ALLISON LEWANDOWSKI, HARRY LEWIS, LEVERNA LEWIS, VINCENT LIVINGSTON, ANGELA LIVINGSTON, DEANNA LYNCH, CHRISTOPHER LYNCH, WILLIAM LYNCH, CHERYL LYNCH, JIM MAGUIRE, RAYMOND MAKOVICKA, BETTY MAKOVICKA, THOMAS MARSH, NIA MARSH, HOWARD MARSHALL, LINDA MARSHALL, DONALD MARTIN, ANNE SHEALS, MARYANN MAYO, LESLIE MCCOY, DARRELL MCDONALD, JANET MCDONALD, JOSE MEDINA, MYCHEL MEDINA, SANDRA MERCER, LARRY MERCER, WILLIAM MERCER, LINDA MERCER, EARNEST MINER, JULIA MORGAN, RODGER MORGAN, MELINDA MORGAN, RUTH MORIN, EDWARD MORRIS, KAREN MORRIS, JEROME MORRIS, ALTHEA MORRIS, JOSEPH MORRISON, LINDA MORRISON, DONALD MORSE, DELMIRE MORSE, ROSE NELSON, DONALD NELSON, PEDRO NIETO, FELIPA NIETO, ELVIN NORMAN, CAROL NORMAN, IRENE OBERA, GEORGE PEDRICK, JOSE GUZMAN, TAMORA PENNELL, JOHN PETROVIC, MARGARET PETROVIC, WILLIAM POTARIS, GEORGIA POTARIS, JOSEPH PRATTI, GRACE PRATTI, ROGER QUADE, PATRICIA QUADE, JOHNNIE QUARTERMAN, IDA QUARTERMAN, ROSE RANEY, WILLARD RAPER, JACKIE RAPER, COREY RAY, SHIRLEY RAY, ANYA REY, NORMAND RHEAUME, CATHERINE RHEAUME, ERIC RICHARDSON, GLORIA RICHARDSON, LARRY RICHARDSON, WALTER RICHARDSON, DARLENE RICHARDSON, JAMINE ROGERS, GERT ROHALL, TERRY ROHALL, JON ROSE, WILLIAM RUSS, JANICE RUSS, DAN RUSSELL, DONN RUSSELL, CAROLYN RUSSELL, KEITH SADOWSKY, LINDA SADOWSKY, EDWARD SANDERS, SHIRLEY SANDERS, TERESITA SANTIAGO, JAMES SELLERS, OLIVIA SELLERS, DAVID SHAEFER, KATHLEEN SHAEFFER, RALPH SIEGEL, MARILYN SIEGEL, ROBERT SMITH, DOUG SOLSBY, EVA SOLSBY, MARK SOUTHWICK, VICKY SOUTHWICK, ROBERT STEWART, DONNA HARRISON, PHILLIP STOCKS, WILMA STOCKS, MARCEL TAJCHMAN, JOHN THOMPSON, PATRICIA THOMPSON, ALEXANDER UMANA, ROSA UMANA, CLARA VILLEGAS, LUIS VILLEGAS, MICHAEL VOORHEES, PATRICIA VOORHEES, RONALD WALKER, RUDOLPH WALKER, GLINDER WALKER, JERRY WARD, SHEILA WARD, LYNN WATTS, THOMAS WEIMER, JOANN WEIER, RANDY WHEELER, JOHNNIE WIEDEMAN, MAUREEN DUNN, HAROLD WILLIAMS, MARGRETTA WILLIAMS, WYNARD WILLIAMS, TIFFANY WILLIAMS, NORBERT WNUKOWSKI, DEBORAH WNUKOWSKI, and DAVID YARBOROUGH. The Plaintiffs are legal and rightful owners of a timeshare interest in Westgate Resorts, Ltd., Central Florida Investments, Inc., and/or Westgate Resorts, Inc. Westgate operates as a resort development company. The Company provides lodging and leisure, amenities such as health spas, restaurants, outdoor pools, hot tubs, and villas with equipped kitchens services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Sokolik, Esq. 8600 Daniel Dunklin Blvd. Pevely, MO 63070 Telephone: (314)-686-4630 E-mail: michaels@consumerlawprotection.com WHISKEY ROW: Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as ORION STRONGHORSE CHURCH and SHANA SHELLEY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. WHISKEY ROW NASHVILLE, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00476 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act consisting of: "all current and former bartenders, servers, barbacks, and food-runners employed by Whiskey Row in Nashville, Tennessee at any time since June 5, 2017"; and 2. authorizing notice of this action via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and Short Message Service message to those members of the conditionally-certified collective action.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON , LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com The Defendant is represented by: Christen C. Blackburn, Esq. LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C. 424 Church Street, Suite 2500 P.O. Box 198615 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: 615 574 6732 Facsimile: 615 259 1389 E-mail: cblackburn@lewisthomason.com - and - Kimberly S. Moore, Esq. CLARK HILL STRASBURGER 2600 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600 Frisco, TX 75034 Telephone: 469 287 3900 Facsimile: 469 287 3999 E-mail: ksmoore@clarkhill.com WHITEHOUSE ESTATES: Eastgate Appeals Judgment in Casey Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Eastgate Whitehouse LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled KATHRYN CASEY, LAURIE CAGNASSOLA, GERALD COHEN, BETTY FURR, FRANCESCA GAGLIANO, CAROLYN KLEIN, JOSEPH MORGAN, JESSICA SAKS and KIRK SWANSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, PAMELA RENNA, VITTINA DEGREZIA aka VITTINA LUPPINO, Plaintiffs-Interveners v. WHITEHOUSE ESTATES, INC., KOEPPEL & KOEPPEL, INC., DUELL 5 MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a DUELL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, WILLIAM W. KOEPPEL and EASTGATE WHITEHOUSE LLC, Defendants; WHITEHOUSE ESTATES, INC., EASTGATE WHITEHOUSE LLC and WILLIAM W. KOEPPEL, Third-Party Plaintiffs v. ROBERTA L. KOEPPEL, ALEXANDER KOEPPEL as Executors and Trustees of the Trust Created under Article Fourth of the Last Will of ROBERT A. KOEPPEL, KOEPPEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC and ROBERTA L. KOEPPEL individually, Third-Party Defendants, Case Nos. 111723/2011 and 595472/2017, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by tenants of 350 East 52nd Street a/k/a 939 First Avenue in Manhattan. The Defendants are the owner/landlord of the building. The Plaintiffs allege that their landlord illegally charged them market rate rents for their apartments. They allege that, as J-51 recipients, the Defendants were required to keep the apartments rent stabilized pursuant to the Court of Appeals decision in Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P., 13 NY3d 270 (2009). The Plaintiffs are suing under the RSL for reimbursement of the excess rent amounts they allegedly paid the Defendants while defendants were participating in the J-51 tax benefit program. The complaint alleges that approximately 72 apartments have been improperly deregulated. The appellate case is captioned as KATHRYN CASEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. WHITEHOUSE ESTATES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2020-02940, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: First Judicial Department.[BN] Defendant-Appellant Eastgate Whitehouse LLC is represented by: Howard W. Kingsley, Esq. ROSENBERG & ESTIS, P.C. 733 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 867-6000 E-mail: hkingsley@rosenbergestis.com WILLIE BREEDT: Faces Hawkes Investigation Amid Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Jarryd Westerdale, writing for Roodepoort Record, reports that navigating the maze of financial management is often best achieved by having a guiding hand, as investing one's hard-earned riches can have life-altering risks and rewards. When things turn sour though, the losses can be devastating. Former Featherbooke Estate resident and Roodepoort businessman, Willie Breedt, is currently the central figure in a multi-province cryptocurrency scandal. Breedt is the subject of a Hawks investigation and is alleged to have defrauded numerous investors via his cryptocurrency management company, Vaultage Solutions. The class action case has complainants from Limpopo to the Cape, not to mention right at home on the West Rand. Hawks spokesperson Colonel Katlego Mohale confirmed the investigation saying, "The case was opened in Naboomspruit (Mookgophong). The suspect has not yet been arrested as further investigations are being conducted." Mariska Becker is one of the local residents who are part of the class action against Breedt. She met the alleged fraudster through their motor vehicle enthusiasts club and invested R80 000 with Breedt. The growth on her investment sits at just short of 26000 US Dollars. One of the more sinister accusations against Breedt relates to a charity golf day, held on 27 February 2020, to raise funds for a wheelchair-bound young girl. Junelde van Loggerenberg suffered a hypoxic brain injury in a near-drowning incident, prompting Vaultage Solutions, who partnered with PMBi Attorneys and Westrand News, to assist the family. [GN] WORLD WIDE CONSULTING: Initial Settlement Approval Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY DAVIS, et al., v. WORLD WIDE CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00771-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court for an order: 1. preliminarily certifying a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the sole purpose of settlement, including the Sub- Classes described in the Agreement; 2. conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for the sole purpose of settlement; 3. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement and Release and its terms; 4. appointing Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine P.C. and Barron Peck Bennie & Schlemmer , L.P.A. as Class Counsel; 5. approving as to form and content the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing; 6. approving as to form and content the proposed Claim Form and Fair Labor Standards Act Opt-In forms; 7. approving as to form and content the proposed Opt-Out Form; 8. directing the mailing of the Notice, the Claim Form and FLSA Opt-In form, and the Opt-Out Form by first class mail to the Potential Class Members; 9. setting a deadline for objections to the settlement; 10. setting a date for the final fairness hearing; and 11. setting a proposed deadline for the Court's entry of final judgment after the Fairness Hearing for this class and collective action settlement. Worldwide Consulting Group provides consulting services. The Company offers consulting in banking, finance, sales, marketing, advertising, import-export, rental property management, trading, and other management services.[CC] The Plaintiffs Jeffrey Davis and Tiffany Carrol are represented by: David C. Harman, Esq. Janet G. Abaray, Esq BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE P.C. 201 E. 5th St., Suite 1340 Cincinnati, OH 45202 E-mail: jabaray@burgsimpson.com dharman@burgsimpson.com - and - Matthew Miller-Novak, Esq. BARRON, PECK, BENNIE & SCHLEMMER, CO. LPA 3074 Madison Road Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 721-1350 Facsimile: (513) 721-2301 E-mail: mmn@bpbslaw.com The Defendant Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc. is represented by: David K. Montgomery, Esq. Matthew R. Byrne, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. PNC Center, 26th Floor 201 E. Fifth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 898-0050 Facsimile: (513) 898-0051 E-mail: david.montgomery@jacksonlewis.com matthew.byrne@jacksonlewis.com YOUTUBE INC: Hit With Class Action for Not Protecting Copyrights ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kavvitaa S Iyer of Techworm reports that Grammy award-winning artist Maria Schneider filed a class-action lawsuit against YouTube (as well as Google and Alphabet, Inc.) in California federal court accusing the giant video-sharing platform of failing to protect her and other "ordinary creators" from unauthorised copying and use of their work, reports TorrentFreak. According to Schneider, YouTube's system for policing copyright infringement protects the "behemoths of the creative industry" such as major studios and record labels, but leaves small producers like her to basically to look out for themselves. YouTube also restricts access to its takedown tools, profits from infringement, and fails to terminate repeat infringers, Schneider added. "YouTube, the largest video-sharing website in the world, is replete with videos infringing on the rights of copyright holders. YouTube has facilitated and induced this hotbed of copyright infringement through its development and implementation of a copyright enforcement system that protects only the most powerful copyright owners such as major studios and record labels," states the 44-page complaint. "Plaintiffs and the Class are the ordinary creators of copyrighted works. They are denied any meaningful opportunity to prevent YouTube's public display of works that infringe their copyrights-no matter how many times their works have previously been pirated on the platform. They are thus left behind by YouTube's copyright enforcement system and instead are provided no meaningful ability to police the extensive infringement of their copyrighted work," it adds. "A vast library of pirated content draws users to the site, and the growth in users incentivizes the posting of more content on YouTube, which in turn enables defendants to reap more advertising revenue." The lawsuit criticizes YouTube for preventing smaller artists from accessing its Content ID, a digital tool that searches out unauthorized use of copyrighted material. According to Schneider, the tool is only provided to large content providers. Others, including herself, "are relegated to vastly inferior and time-consuming manual means of trying to police and manage their copyrights, such as scanning the entirety of YouTube postings, searching for keywords, titles, and other potential identifiers," continues the complaint. They must then file individual takedown notices with YouTube via a web-form, email, or postal mail for each video their searches identify. "Content ID is not only unavailable to Plaintiffs and the Class, but it actually insulates the vast majority of known and repeated copyright infringers from YouTube's repeat infringer policy, thereby encouraging its users' continuing upload of infringing content", the complaint reads. YouTube has consistently claimed that it protected the rights holders by America's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) safe harbor against copyright infringement lawsuits. However, Schneider argues that YouTube's non-Content ID systems for dealing with infringing content are insufficient for the company to enjoy safe harbour protection under the rules set out in DCMA. "If a rights holder does not have the economic clout to qualify for Content ID. YouTube refuses to add their works to the Content ID catalogue for prepublication protection even if those works have previously been infringed on YouTube hundreds or even thousands of times. Through its use of these systems, YouTube exerts significant control over which infringing videos may be published on its site and which infringing videos are never viewed by the public," the lawsuit continues. The DMCA provides a safe harbor against copyright infringement claims for entities such as YouTube so long as they formulate and reasonably enforce a policy of terminating repeat copyright infringers from their platform. YouTube intends to take advantage of this safe harbor by having a policy that assesses a "copyright strike" against the uploader when an ordinary rights holder files a takedown notice and terminating uploaders when they accrue three active copyright strikes within 90 days. However, when infringing content is uploaded and identified by the Content ID system, no copyright strikes are issued. While YouTube declined to comment on the suit, it does maintain that it's committed to protecting intellectual property rights and stopping privacy. Schneider is now asking for monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and an order that directs Google to give content providers better equipment to control copyright infringement. She has also asked the court to declare the lawsuit as a class-action to represent other YouTube content providers. [GN] [*] Australia Has High Exposure to Securities Class Action Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- InsuranceNews.com.au reports that stock exchange operator ASX has discussed the rising cost of directors' and officers' cover with London insurers amid worries the issue may undermine the attractiveness of the local securities market. ASX says in a submission to a Parliamentary committee inquiry that the insurers it engaged with in talks this year indicated that Australia is seen globally as the jurisdiction with the highest exposure to securities class action risk, and it's an increasing concern. "To the extent that this issue impacts on the cost of doing business in Australia, and in particular the cost and attractiveness of operating as a listed entity in Australia, it suggests that regulatory reform may be appropriate," it says. ASX defends the continuous disclosure regime, while noting that over time a requirement to provide a fault element against a company accused of a breach has been removed. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry into litigation funding and the regulation of the class action industry is due to report by December 7. But the Federal Government has already made some changes, including temporary adjustments to continuous disclosure rules due to the COVID-19 outbreak, so liability only applies if there has been "knowledge, recklessness or negligence". ASX says it supports the temporary move and is open-minded about a permanent change to introduce a fault element as a defence for listed companies against private civil action. The Insurance Council of Australia has also reiterated its case for reform to the parliamentary committee inquiry, including that there should be a separate review into the legal and economic impacts of the continuous disclosure obligations. Marsh says the average D&O insurance increase in the first quarter this year was 225%, with some premiums rising as much as 400-500% for the biggest ASX-listed companies. "COVID-19 will continue to exacerbate the market hardening, with London capacity for Australian risks further withdrawing, and inevitably impact pricing for the balance of 2020," the broker says in its submission. "We are once again seeing triple digit pricing increases." Marsh warns a hardening market in Australia and globally is likely to continue over the next 12-18 months. "Corporate Australia could face a future in which D&O insurance is no longer available or affordable or provides the coverage expected or required," it says. [GN] [*] Clyde & Co Tackles AU COVID-19 Securities Class Action Trends ----------------------------------------------------------------- Janette McLennan, Esq.--janette.mclennan@clydeco.com--Christopher Smith, Esq.--christopher.smith@clydeco.com--Johann Spies, Esq.--johann.spies@clydeco.com--and Joel Harris, Esq., of Clyde & Co, in an article for Mondaq, report that the global health pandemic brought on by COVID-19 has devastated economies around the world. Directors and officers are in an incredibly challenging position right now. The current environment of lock-downs, travel bans and quarantines means that many companies are in financial difficulties or will run into financial difficulties very soon. Prime considerations are business contingency planning, supply chains, and relationships with shareholders, trade creditors and secured lenders. Whilst COVID-19 related securities class actions have been announced in the USA, as we detail below, none have been announced in Australia. There may be rich material for plaintiff lawyers and litigation funding to mine. Between 1 December 2019 and 9 March 2020, 596 announcements referencing Coronavirus or COVID-19 were made by 326 ASX-listed entities (out of a total of 1,800).1 Recent statements from the Former Law Council president Stuart Clark suggested that COVID-19 class actions were "spreading like a virus in the US and they are now infecting Australia". With limitations not presently being in issue, it is probably going to be a little time before we start seeing cases being filed. The risks of a shareholder class action arising from the current situation should be on the minds of directors and officers (and their insurers). However the degree to which we will see a huge surge of securities filings is still uncertain. In this article, we consider the likely trends for securities class actions in the next 6 to 18 months as Australia emerges from its COVID-19 lockdown. We will consider the impact of the reforms to the continuous disclosure rules. We also look to whether the securities class actions already filed in the USA, as well the historical experience during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), may provide some guidance in determining the current trends. Finally we will review some of the recent developments in class action procedure such as common fund orders and the fallout from the recent settlement of the Myer claim to see the effects these are likely to have on how securities claims are likely to be brought. A copy of the full article is available at: https://is.gd/Mdwt9q [GN] [*] How Canada's Banks Are Failing Homeowners --------------------------------------------- Brian Richard Joseph, in an article for Journal Pioneer titled "How Canada's banks are failing homeowners--and their COVID test", wrote that the clients of the big banks in Canada are not being well served in the current pandemic--either by these banks themselves, or by the federal regulators charged with guarding the public interest. When the Financial Post published a caveat that Canada's big banks needed to watch their public relations flank on April 23--early on in the coronavirus pandemic--inadvertently exposing the banks' velvet-glove treatment by federal regulators, reader response was overwhelmingly condemnatory and harsh. One compared Canada's chartered banks to "loan sharks hiding in fancy buildings and fancy suits" and another described how much better European banks have done in serving the public interest, including a complete suspension of interest payments on credit cards and a shift to zero per cent interest rates during the COVID emergency. There has been no such contribution to the public good here in Canada by the banking industry. Canadian banks and their powerful lobbying arm, the Canadian Bankers Association, have for too long enjoyed a cosy, almost incestuous, relationship with their federal regulators and with the federal cabinet. The current insipid response of the big banks to the financial distress of unemployed Canadians is a shameful reminder of how much leeway these corporate actors enjoy in the face of weak federal regulation. It's the "SNC-Lavalin syndrome" of special treatment for the rich and powerful. Deja vu. Canadians need real structural change in the regulation of the Canadian banking oligopoly. At present, current regulations allow too much leeway to those being regulated. This phenomenon, known as "regulatory capture" was first brought to public attention by consumer advocate Ralph Nader. The term refers to the "capture" of the regulating authority by the powerful commercial influence of the parties supposedly being regulated. Here in Nova Scotia, the dangers of regulatory capture are also manifest in the cosy relationship between Nova Scotia Power and its government regulator, the provincial Utility and Review Board. As many jurisprudents, including the Law Reform Commission of Canada, have pointed out, such administrative leeway usually works in the favour of the rich and powerful rather than toward leveling the playing field for ordinary Canadians. The ordinary citizen struggling to pay a mortgage, or other bank debt, receives no such generous consideration. Under the aegis of the Canadian Bankers Association, Canada's chartered banks have made the miserly decision to allow borrowers to defer mortgage payments - but only at the cost of paying additional interest due over the normal term of their mortgage. This actually increases the total amount to be paid back! The much fairer alternative form of loan, a "visgage," where payments directly reduce the principal (because the principal is alive or "vis") has been almost completely hidden from consumers by the banks. Here, Common Law legal history provides rare illumination, revealing the quasi-usurious nature of the conventional mortgage contract. For the preface "mort" in the word "mortgage" contains the source of great consumer grief: "mort" indicates that the principal of the loan is dead until the lender gets the majority of the interest due in advance. And, in the latest example of this widespread, usually unquestioned, banking practice, homeowners' deferred payments are to be added to the principal amount outstanding, rather than simply being made due as extra payments at the end of the loan term. Thus, the "dead" principal portion of their mortgage grows larger, causing even more interest to be due over the full term of the mortgage. While "legal," this is unjust. It offends the expectations of fairness and equity which underpin consumers' respect for the rule of law. The difference between a "mortgage" and a "visgage" for the average homeowner carrying a loan against their home would be enormous. At the 10-year historically average mortgage rate of 5.07 per cent, a prospective homeowner would pay $93,635.78 in interest on a 30-year mortgage loan of $100,000. This means that the interest due is almost equal to the amount borrowed! And the total amount paid back over the life of the mortgage ($193,635.78) is almost double the amount borrowed! No wonder some Financial Post correspondents used terms like "loan sharkers." Consumers have been led by the banks - and even by the federal government's Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) - to believe this is the only way to structure a home purchase loan. But compare the five-year interest costs of a $100,000 car loan vs. the first five years of the above 30-year mortgage. If you borrowed $100,000 for a car loan at the same interest rate of 5.07 per cent, you'd pay $13,396.02 in total interest, compared to five-year interest charges of $24,113.82 in the first five years of the mortgage. (During that first five-year period, the principal of the $100,000 mortgage would be reduced by only $8,148.80, despite paying the bank a total of $32,272.62.) Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as too much profit--and not enough customer service and attention to the public good! When economists at the Library of Parliament ranked all North American banks for profitability, using both return on equity (ROE) and return on assets (ROA), Canada's chartered banks captured all the top positions. Much of this profit is gained at the expense of mortgage borrowers in Canada. We see this same problem in long-term, for-profit, seniors' care homes across Canada: the profit motive, insufficiently regulated to protect the public interest, leading to great harm being done to vulnerable persons, and in this case, sadly, to much avoidable loss of life. To add further insult to injury, mortgage interest payments in Canada are not tax-deductible for homeowners, as they are in the United States. This critical difference in tax regulations is unknown to many Canadian homeowners. Consider, for average families, the benefit of having access to tax deductions worth almost $100,000 over the life of a mortgage! In a glaring example of legal favouritism for the wealthy, such deductions are available to Canadian businesses that are building structures for landlords to rent, but these same deductions are normally not available to families building or buying a home for their own use. In this light, the failure of Canada's extremely profitable chartered banks to give greater relief to Canadians in this pandemic emergency is an injustice that ill serves the reputation of the banking industry in Canada, as the Financial Post earlier warned. Perhaps it will take the threat of class-action lawsuits to abrogate mortgage agreements and other unfair contracts under "force majeure" (act of God)--legal provisions that can be used to nullify existing contracts under emergency conditions--to compel Canadian banks and their normally compliant government regulators to step up. A class-action lawsuit against the banks, using force majeure legal provisions, would be an enormous contribution to levelling the playing field for Canadian borrowers. In the post-COVID-19 world, credit unions in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere in Canada, with their greater orientation towards public service and their closer community ties, might consider offering a hybrid "VISgage," wherein at least half of each payment goes directly to reducing the principal amount owed on a home purchase loan right from Day 1. What they lose in profit from a conventional "MORTgage," they might gain on an increased volume of business--especially when they show banking customers the huge savings in interest payments to be had by avoiding a conventional mortgage. The federal government of the day, including the newly named head of the central bank, Tiff MacKlem, has a moral obligation to insist that the big chartered banks fulfil the requirements of good corporate citizenship beyond the strict letter of the law, by giving Canadians real and substantial assistance in this global emergency, as opposed to the window-dressing currently on display in slick and somewhat misleading bank advertising campaigns. In the months and years ahead, post COVID-19, Canadians from coast to coast to coast deserve better service from Canada's big banks and better care of the public interest by federal bank regulators. * * * Brian Richard Joseph lives in North Sydney. He served two terms on the Law Reform Commission of Nova Scotia. A former Sidney Smith Scholar at the University of Toronto, he studied legal history at Harvard Law School and economics under John Kenneth Galbraith at Harvard. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***