/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200721.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 21, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 145 Headlines 1-800 CONTACTS: Fairness Hearing in Thompson Suit Set for Oct. 20 ADHEREHEALTH LLC: Hayward Slams Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS: Investment Deal Lacks Info, Sabatini Says AIR METHODS: Court Narrows Claims in Armato & DeQuasie Suits ALL AMERICAN SECURITY: Haave Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ALLIANZ: Faces "Junk" Car Insurance Class Action ALLIED NEVADA: Fairness Hearing in Securities Suit Set for Nov. 16 ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Irwindale Antitrust Suit Over E-Cig Marketing ALVARADO RESTAURANT: Faces Wallace Suit Over Wage Abuse Scheme AMERICAN CORPORATE: Gomez Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT & Other Benefits ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Tollefson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ANGUS PROVING: Valdivia Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA APELLES LLC: Ismani Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification ARCHER DANIELS: Manipulates Ethanol Prices, Green Plains et al Say ARTHUR BLASZCZYSZYN INSURANCE: Katt Files ADA Class Action ASSET RECOVERY: Nakshin Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter ATLANTIC RECORDING: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Alleges AUDI AG: Accused in Suit of Ignoring Start/Stop System Defect AVIVA INSURANCE: Faces Business Interruption Class Action BANK OF NEW YORK: Scott+Scott Files Breach of Contract Action BAYER AG: Scraps $1.25BB Roundup Weedkiller Settlement Proposal BJ'S WHOLESALE: Young Asserts Breach of ADA in New York BMW: Indirect Purchasers' Federal RICO Claims Dismissed in Rickman BUCKLES & BUCKLES: 6th Cir. Flips Merit Orders in Van Hoven Suit CALHOUN COUNTY, MI: Court Partly Grants TRO Motion in Malam Suit CANADA POST: Lambert Avocat Files Delivery Service Class Action CANADA: Gowling Offers Free Legal Advice IDS Settlement Claims CAPITAL ONE: Thongstisubskul Sues Over Unlawful Credit Inquiries CARNIVAL CORP: O'Neill Sues Over Lack of COVID-19 Measures CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Rodriguez Seeks to Certify Class CBSC INC: Angeles Sues in N.D. Ohio Alleging Violation of FDCPA CIRCLE K STORES: James Sues Over Illegal Background Check CKF ENTERPRISES: Rule 23 Class in Ware Gets Prelim. Certification CLARK & GENTRY: Court Narrows Claims in Avrahami RICO Suit CLIENT SERVICES: Riccio Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation COLONY CAPITAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 27 Deadline CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Barbershop Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Losses CROSSLAND OILFIELD: Gonzales Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Welders DALLAS, TX: Faces Dobbins Suit Alleging Violation of Civil Rights DEUTSCHE BANK: Karimi Sues Over Decline in Share Price DISNEY WORLD: Annual Passholders File Class Action DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Howard Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. ELLIOT SECURITY: Bid to Conditionally Certify FLSA Classes Denied ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Suit Hits Share Price Drop EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Grauman Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports ERIE INSURANCE: Salons, Resto Slam Denied Insurance Coverage ERNIE'S AUTO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Ortega et al. Claim ESSENTIA HEALTH: Faces Kraft Product Liability Suit in D.N.D. ESSEX COUNTY, NJ: $5.7MM Deal in Strip Search Class Action Okayed FIFTH THIRD: Hartt Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Bank Accounts GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Head Suit Over Defective Sunroof Design GEO GROUP: Kehoe Law Investigates Securities Claims GEO GROUP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Suit GEO GROUP: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit GINO'S OF BAYSIDE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Torres Says GOLI NUTRITION: Young Asserts Breach of ADA in New York GOOGLE LLC: Rodriguez et al. Allege Invasion of Consumer Privacy GOOGLE: Unlawfully Collects, Stores Facial Biometrics, Vance Says GORDON BRUSH: Blind Can't Access Website, Tenzer-Fuchs Alleges HAND HOSPITALITY: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages HANLEES AUTO: Cal. App. Upholds Arbitration Ruling in Jarboe Suit HANOVER INSURANCE: Tsakos Inc Files Insurance Case in New Jersey HILLCREST DAVIDSON: Shams Balks at Debt Collection Practices HITACHI LTD: 1st & 2nd Round Deals in ODD Antitrust Suit Upheld HUDSON CITY SAVINGS: Lin Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit INFUSION CAPITAL: Faces Benitez Class Suit in S.D. California J2 GLOBAL: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action J2 GLOBAL: Rosen Files First Securities Class Action Lawsuit J2 GLOBAL: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit JAMAICA LIVE: Teixeira Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages JAMES SINGER: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Actions JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: BCBSA Sues Over Delayed Generic Drug Entry JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: GEHA Sues Over Delayed Generic Drug Entry JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Martinez Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid JP MORGAN: Fields Sues in E.D. Arkansas Alleging TCPA Violation JP MORGAN: Tax Divas Seeks to Recover Fees for PPP Loan Agents JRSK INC: Young Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act JWH HOLDINGS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Tenzer-Fuchs Says KIRKLAND LAKE: Rosen Notes of Aug. 28 Lead Plaintiff Deadline KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Ruffin Files Suit under FDCPA KROGER CO: Mislabels Products With Acetaminophen, Hartwich Claims KROTO INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Riggs Claims LIQUID WEB: Licea Removed From Super. Court to C.D. California LIVE OAK LANDSCAPE: Ex-Worker Files Wage and Hour Suit LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Town Kitchen Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida M B-REAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls MANHEIM, PA: T.G. Files Civil Rights Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania MASSACHUSETTS: Bail Consideration Bid in Grinis Inmates Suit Denied MCCARTHY & BURGESS: Lindala Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid MDL 2047: Court Refuses to Strike Bid to File Additional Exhibits MDL 2924: Leadership Structure in Zantac Liability Suit Established MIDLAND CREDIT: Angle Sues over Debt Collection Practices MIDLAND CREDIT: Ungar Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices MSC INDUSTRIAL: New York Court Dismisses Guglielmo Suit MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE: Fails to Secure PII, Stoll Suit Says NAB: 45,000+ Aussies Receive Share of $49.5MM Settlement NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Lim Asserts Breach of FDCPA NEW YORK BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Garcia Claims NEW YORK, NY: D. Murray Claims Dismissed in Syville Lawsuit NEXTIER OILFIELD: Conditional Class Cert. Sought in Kenworthy Suit NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Harris Sues over Warranty on Vehicle Parts NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Ferretti Seeks Tuition Fee Refund NR 1 TRANSPORT: Dawkins Sues Over Unpaid Wages PACIFIC FOODS: Falsely Markets Hemp Drinks, Weintz Suit Alleges PARKING REVENUE: Cope Sues in Colorado Alleging FDCPA Violation PENN NATIONAL: McCartney Seeks Underinsured Motorist Benefits PHILLIPS & COHEN: Howard Hits Collection Letter Settlement Offer PLAID INC: Collects Bank Data Without Consent, Anderson et al. Say PNC FINANCIAL: Denise M Henning CPA Seeks to Recover Agent Fees PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Must Face Overtime Wage Class Action PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York REHAB AMERICA: Beard and Durret Sue Over Unpaid Overtime RICHMOND, CA: Fails to Pay Fire Inspectors Overtime, Padilla Says RICK SNYDER: Carthan Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses RLB COLLECTIVE: Thomas-Lawson Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts ROVER INC: Faces Newbrough Civil Rights Suit in S.D. New York SAFETY HARBOR: Hayes Suit Seeks Quiet Title to Cemetery SEATTLE, WA: Ansa Attorney Discusses CHAZ/CHOP Takeover Lawsuits SEQUIUM ASSET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Davis Suit Claims SHIRE: Rochester Drug No Longer Adequate Rep for Intuniv Class SKIPTHEDISHES: Labor Class Suit to Move Forward in September SOGOU INC: Frater Appeals S.D.N.Y. Orders in Luo Suit to 2nd Cir. SPARTAN COMPANIES: Denied Welders Overtime Pay, Hernandez Claims SPEER INSURANCE: Katt Files ADA Suit in Colorado STILLMAN PC: Clendening et al. Allege Wrongful Debt Collections STOCKX LLC: Esquer Sues in N.D. Calif. Over Customer Data Breach SWIFT RESPONSE: Young Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA SYMANTEC CORP: Class in SEB Investment Securities Suit Certified TELEDYNE DEFENSE: George Alleges Inaccurate Wage Statements THREE SIXTY GROUP: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Guglielmo Claims TSG ENTERPRISES: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE: MARRAS 46 LLC Files Suit in New Jersey UNITED STATES OIL FUND: Faces Wang Securities Suit in N.D. Calif. UNITED STATES: TRO Motion in Martinez-Brooks Suit Partly Granted US BANK: Kunzer Appeals D. Minn. Ruling in Trust Suit to 8th Cir. UTGR INC: Faces Rose Suit Alleging Discrimination and Retaliation VERDE ENERGY: Faces Spiesman Suit Over Unfair Pricing Practices VERMONT: Class Certification in Mullinnex Prisoners Suit Flipped VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Potter Sues Over 22% Share Price Decline VOLT MANAGEMENT: Faces McCain Employment Class Suit in California WALMART INC: First Amended Complaint Filed in Castro Suit WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Bleachtech Suit in Maryland Circuit Court WEBER COUNTY, UT: Hobbs Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus WELLBRIDGE CLUB: Katt Alleges Violation of ADA in Colorado WELLS FARGO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 3 Deadline WELLS FARGO: Pension Fund Sues Over Misleading SEC Statements WIRECARD AG: Frank R. Cruz Announces Filing of Class Action WIRECARD AG: Hagens Berman Intends to File Amended Complaint WIRECARD AG: Rosen Announces Filing of Securities Class Action XAVIER UNIVERSITY: Miranda Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees [*] Carlton Fields: Latest Class Action Trends [*] Class Action Defense Spending Expected to Rise This Year [*] COVID-19 Pandemic Spurs 500+ Class Actions, Survey Shows [*] New Ontario Bill Sets Higher Bar for Class Action Suits [*] Rochester to Join Class Action Against Opioid Producers [*] TCPA Class Action Trap Broadened for Unwary Businesses ********* 1-800 CONTACTS: Fairness Hearing in Thompson Suit Set for Oct. 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CPT Group, Inc. on July 8 announced proposed settlements reached with Defendants 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Vision Direct, Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Walgreen Co., Arlington Contact Lens Service, Inc., National Vision, Inc., and Luxottica of America, Inc. (f/k/a Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.) in Thompson v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-01183. The lawsuit alleges that 13 contact lens retailers entered into bilateral written agreements with 1-800 Contacts, Inc. that affected the online retail market for contact lenses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1. If you purchased contact lenses online from one or more of the Defendants between January 1, 2004 and September 12, 2019, you may be eligible to participate in these settlements and receive a payment. To qualify for payment, you must submit a Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator. You may submit a Claim Form online through the settlement website, www.onlinecontactlenssettlement.com. Your Claim Form will be reviewed, and a determination will be made as to whether you have any contact lens purchases qualifying and allowed for payment. Claim Forms must be submitted by December 4, 2020. For anyone unsure if they are a Settlement Class Member, more information, including a detailed notice, is available at www.onlinecontactlenssettlement.com, or by calling 1-888-506-0436. Settlement Class Members who do not opt out will release certain legal rights against the Defendants and the Released Parties, as explained in the detailed notice and settlement agreements, available at www.onlinecontactlenssettlement.com. Settlement Class Members who do not want to take part in the proposed settlements must postmark their opt out request by September 21, 2020 and mail it to the Settlement Administrator at CPT Group, Inc., 50 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA 92606. Settlement Class Members who do not opt out may object to any part of the proposed settlements. To do so, you must file your objections by September 21, 2020. The Court will hold a hearing on October 20, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court for the District of Utah, 351 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84101, to consider whether to approve the proposed settlements, the Plan of Distribution, and Co-Lead Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards to the Class Plaintiffs. Settlement Class Members or their lawyers may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at their own expense, but do not have to. More details about the settlements are available in the Settlement Agreements. To obtain copies of the Agreements, please visit www.onlinecontactlenssettlement.com or contact the Settlement Administrator at 1-888-506-0436. [GN] ADHEREHEALTH LLC: Hayward Slams Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Hayward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. AdhereHealth, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00508 (M.D. Tenn., June 17, 2020), 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. AdhereHealth is a healthcare technology solutions provider supporting health plans, self-insured employers, and other risk-bearing entities for medication adherence insights and improved healthcare outcomes. AdhereHealth attempted to contact Hayward using an automatic telephone dialing system with a pre-recorded or artificial voices. Hayward was never a customer of AdhereHealth, never provided his phone number and never gave his express consent to be contacted in such manner, says the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 223-5402 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Kathryn E. Barnett, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN - NASHVILLE 810 Broadway, Suite 105 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 490-0943 Email: kbarnett@forthepeople.com - and - Amanda J. Allen, Esq. William Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 4030 Henderson Blvd Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 Email: Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS: Investment Deal Lacks Info, Sabatini Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS, INC., ROBERT CAMPBELL, DENISE L. DEVINE, NANCE DICCIANI, JORDI FERRE, GREGORY FREIWALD, TORSTEN KRAEF, GEORGE LOBISSER, and MACAULEY WHITING JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00946-UNA (D. Del., July 14, 2020) alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on July 6, 2020. On June 13, 2020, AgroFresh Solutions, Inc.'s Board of Directors caused AgroFresh to enter into an Investment Agreement with PSP AGFS Holdings, L.P., an affiliate of Paine Schwartz Partners, LLC. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, among other things, the Investor will purchase an aggregate of $150,000,000 of new preferred stock of the Company. On July 6, 2020, defendants filed a proxy statement with the SEC, which recommends that AgroFresh's stockholders vote to approve the issuance of shares pursuant to the Agreement at a stockholder meeting scheduled for August 6, 2020. According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose the financial projections and analyses that the Individual Defendants considered and relied upon in coming to their decision to approve the Agreement; fails to disclose the terms of BMO Capital Markets' engagement; fails to disclose a fair summary of the process and negotiations leading up to the execution of the Agreement; and fails to disclose whether the Individual Defendants considered any alternatives to the Agreement. Plaintiff is the owner of AgroFresh common stock. Agrofresh Solutions, Inc. is a Pennsylvania-headquartered global innovator and provider of science-based solutions, data-driven technologies and experience-backed services to enhance the quality and extend the shelf life of fresh produce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com AIR METHODS: Court Narrows Claims in Armato & DeQuasie Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JEREMY LEE SCARLETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION and ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-cv-02723-RBJ, Consolidated Cases No. 17-cv-00485, 17-cv-00502, 17-cv-00509, 17-cv-00667, 17-cv-791, 19-cv-01771, 19-cv-01951 (D. Colo.), Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, among other things, entered rulings on separate Motions to Dismiss the 'Armato' complaint, the 'DeQuasie' complaint, and the 'Cowen' complaint. The case is a consolidated multi-district litigation case before the Court on several motions by Defendants Air Methods and Rocky Mountain. The Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff Jonathan Armato's Class Action Complaint, Case No. 1:19-cv-01771-RBJ ("Armato complaint,") as well as Plaintiffs Richard DeQuasie, et al.'s Amended Class Action Complaint, Case No. 1:16-cv-02723-RBJ ("DeQuasie complaint"). The Defendants also move to strike the class allegations from the Armato complaint, the Deqausie complaint, and Plaintiffs Randal Cowen, et al.'s Amended Class Action Complaint, Case No. 1:16-cv-02723-RBJ ("Cowen complaint"). These class action complaints are all brought on behalf of patients, their legal guardians, or the estates of deceased patients, who were charged allegedly exorbitant fees by defendants for medical transport by helicopter. Defendant Air Methods is an air ambulance company with a principle place of business in Englewood, Colorado, while Defendant Rocky Mountain is a holding company that owns Air Methods and directs collection efforts jointly with Air Methods. Though the various groups of Plaintiffs have slightly different legal theories, their claims all stem from the allegedly unreasonable amounts the Defendants charge to provide air ambulance transportation despite there being no agreement as to price. The Plaintiffs allege that after providing medical air transport, the Defendants typically invoice patients upwards of $40,000 for baseline air ambulance transportation services, excluding any medical services provided en route. In many cases, after the Defendants send patients an invoice, they asked them to sign an "assignment of benefits" ("AOB") prepared by the Defendants, which authorizes direct payment of patient's insurance benefits to defendants and assigns them the patients' insurance coverage rights. After patients' insurance pay what they deem to be the reasonable value of the services, the Defendants typically demand that patients pay the remainder of the charged amount. The Plaintiffs claim the Defendants have initiated collection efforts against them, and in some cases they have filed state court breach of contract claims and other suits to collect their charges from the Plaintiffs. The action is now comprised of eight separate complaints. Only three are at issue for the purposes of the motion, and Judge Jackson contains his discussion to those three. The Armato complaint asserts claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as equitable restitution. The DeQuasie complaint asserts only a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. Although the Armato and DeQuasie complaints allege similar facts, they bring slightly different claims for relief. Both the Armato and the DeQuasie Plaintiffs argue that no contract exists between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The DeQuasie Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that no contract exists, as well as prospective relief pursuant to that judgment. Armato, who brings a class action but is the only named Plaintiff, asks for equitable restitution of payments made to the Defendants in addition to declaratory relief. Finally, the Cowen Plaintiffs raised claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, breach of contract, and equitable restitution. The Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint in its entirety, and Judge Jackson granted their motion on May 22, 2018. The Cowen Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Cowen Plaintiffs' implied contract and unjust enrichment claim. It then reversed the Court's dismissal of the Cowen Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim regarding the existence of enforceable express or implied-in-fact contracts. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Armato and Deqausie complaints, and to strike the class allegations from these complaints as well as the Cowen complaint. Regarding the Plaintiffs' requested declaratory judgment, the Defendants argue (1) that the ADA does not create a private right of action, and (2) that the ADA does not prevent the Defendants from receiving payments for services. Judge Jackson holds that the Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim does not, as the Defendants would have it, attempt to create a cause of action under the ADA. Rather it arises from the Court's power to resolve contract disputes between airlines and customers, which the Tenth Circuit has held are not pre-empted under the ADA. As the Judge has dismissed the non-declaratory prospective relief requested in the Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim, all that remains is the Plaintiffs' request for an order declaring that no contract exists between the parties. The Judge finds that contrary to the Defendants' argument, declaratory judgment claims about the existence of a contract neither prevent them from collecting for their services nor improperly regulate the airline industry. The Plaintiffs may continue to pursue a declaratory judgment, but their requests for non-declaratory and injunctive relief under DJA Section 2202 are dismissed. Next, the Defendants argue that Armato's claim for equitable restitution is preempted by the ADA. The Judge finds that equitable restitution is a closely related equitable remedy that "would reflect the court's policy judgment." Under the Tenth Circuit's holding in Scarlett, the claim is pre-empted by the ADA. The Defendants' motion is granted as to the DeQuasie and the Armato Plaintiffs' claims for non-declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to DJA Section 2202, and as to Armato's claim for equitable restitution. The motion is denied as to the Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claims. Turning to their motion to strike, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs cannot meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a), (b)(2), or (b)(3), and therefore the class allegations should be struck. The Judge finds that (i) because the Defendants' theory of the case and any resultant conflicts remain vague, and because the proposed class could easily be narrowed, he cannot find that a conflict exists that would make class certification impossible; (ii) because the Defendants have not articulated their reasoning as to why the Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claims should fail, he does not find at this time that it would be impossible for the Plaintiffs to satisfy the commonality requirement; and (iii) the harm and threat of harm suffered by the named Plaintiffs as a result of the Defendants' attempts to collect exorbitant fees following air transport is typical of the harm and threat of harm suffered by other members of the class. The Judge also agrees with the Defendants that individual issues predominate over class issues so as to rule out certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3), at least to the extent the question is whether an implied-in-fact contract was formed. Rules 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2), the Judge has the same reservations. The Court's ultimate task is to determine whether a contract was formed, and he's not convinced that the individual legal and factual issues affecting that determination would disappear regardless of the subsection of Rule 23(b) one attempts to apply. But the Judge can only address the issues the parties have briefed, and they have not fleshed out their positions on (b)(1) or (b)(2). The Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the predominance requirement, and therefore he grants the Defendants' motion regarding the Plaintiffs' allegations under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to whether or not an implied-in-fact contract was formed. In sum, Judge Jackson: -- granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Armato Complaint. Armato's Count I is dismissed insofar as it requests injunctive and non-declaratory relief and Count II for equitable restitution in its entirety; -- granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the DeQuasie Complaint. The DeQuasie Plaintiffs' Count I is dismissed insofar as it requests injunctive and non-declaratory relief; -- granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Consolidated Motion to Strike Class Allegations from the Cowen, the DeQuasie, and the Armato Complaints. The Motion is granted insofar as it asks the Court to strike the Plaintiffs' allegations under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to the existence or non-existence of implied-in-fact contracts. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/D03jQD from Leagle.com. ALL AMERICAN SECURITY: Haave Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Haave, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. All American Security Services, Inc. and Sergio Salas, individually, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-22477, (S.D. Fla., June 16, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees of this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants owned and operated a security services business based in Miami-Dade County, where Haave worked as an Account Manager. He claims to be denied being paid time and one-half wages for all of their actual hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. One Flagler, 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 901-1379 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com ALLIANZ: Faces "Junk" Car Insurance Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Matt Johnson, writing for TheNewDaily, reports that Tracy-Ann Fuller is one of thousands of Australians allegedly caught out by so-called "car yard insurance". The Melbourne woman was preparing to sign the contract for her new Holden Trax LTZ when, she says, she was "rushed" into buying a trio of add-on insurance products at the dealership –- including one that claimed to cover tyre and rim damage. Ms. Fuller says the cost of the additional policies was nearly $6000. But as they were bundled in with the rest of the paperwork, she thought they were an integral part of her package, she told The New Daily. "Nobody told me that the products were optional -- I thought they were part of the finance documents," Ms Fuller said. It was only when her car sustained damage that she believed she had been sold a furphy. "When I tried to make a claim under my tyre-and-rim insurance for damage to my car rim and it was rejected. Then I realised it basically didn't cover anything," Ms Fuller said. Now, Ms Fuller is the lead plaintiff in a class action brought against Allianz and Allianz Life by law firm Johnson Winter & Slattery (JWS) over the alleged sale of "junk" products, in what is claimed to be a breach of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. The class action covers car and motorcycle customers who bought the following Allianz products through a dealership: -- Loan Protection Insurance -- Motor Equity Insurance (referred to as "GAP Insurance", "Shortfall -- Insurance" or "Value Protect Insurance") -- Extended Motor Warranty -- Tyre and Rim Insurance products. JWS practice group head of dispute resolution Paul Buitendag said last year's Hayne Royal Commission saw a number of complainants come out of the woodwork. "While the Royal Commission is behind us, many consumers have significant claims and JWS has been instructed to file these important proceedings to take all steps available for the class to seek redress," Mr Buitendag told The New Daily. JWS has confirmed drivers across Australia would be eligible to participate in the legal battle as group members. And testimony handed to the banking royal commission suggest hundreds of thousands of motorists could be eligible. Documents submitted by Allianz Australia chief general manager of retail distribution Michael Winter reveal at least 739,000 "add-on" policies taken out between 2013 and 2018 are potentially in question, totalling more than $600 million in premiums. Allianz refunded $45.6 million to 68,000 customers who were sold insurance of "little or no value" as a result of an investigation by the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in 2018. ASIC declared add-on insurance products sold through car dealerships were expensive, of poor value and offered little benefit to consumers. The firm admitted some dealer customers were sold products that may not have been suited to their individual circumstances. An Allianz spokesperson said the firm acknowledged the new class action in relation to its add-on insurance products. "In December 2017, ASIC approved an Allianz remediation program of premium refunds for any customers that may have purchased motor add-on insurance products that were not suitable for their needs," she told The New Daily. "As this matter is now before the court, no further public comments will be made." Treasury last year released a proposal paper outlining reform for the sale of add-on insurance, which would introduce an "industry-wide deferred sales model (DSM)" to protect motorists from tactics including "pressure-selling, poor claims ratios and low levels of consumer engagement". The general insurance industry representative body, the Insurance Council of Australia, was among the respondents that support the introduction of a DSM. While welcoming the new class action, Consumer Action Law Centre senior policy officer Cat Newton told The New Daily some motorists are still being stung by dealers with "junk" car insurance policies. "We continue to hear from people who have been flogged junk insurance this year, particularly in car yards [so] to prevent ongoing harm, we need ASIC to intervene to stop the sale of junk insurance by car dealers," Ms Newton said. "Commissioner Hayne also recommended a 'deferred sales' model for all add-on insurance, whether it's sold by a lender, travel agents or retail shops. "This reform would give people time to consider whether they want or need the add-on insurance, free from high-pressure sales tactics motivated by eye-watering commissions." [GN] ALLIED NEVADA: Fairness Hearing in Securities Suit Set for Nov. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ A Summary Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action was issued on July 15, 2020 in In re ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORP., SECURITIES LITIGATION, This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 3:14-cv-00175-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.). The Summary Notice is for ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORPORATION ("ALLIED") COMMON STOCK IN THE UNITED STATES OR ON A SECURITIES EXCHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 18, 2013, THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST 5, 2013, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS"): YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on November 16, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. (PT), before the Honorable Larry R. Hicks at the United States District Court, District of Nevada, Bruce R. Thompson Federal Courthouse, 400 S. Virginia Street, Reno, NV 89501, to determine whether the Court should: (1) grant final certification to the Class; (2) approve the proposed Settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $14,000,000.00 in cash ("Settlement Amount") as fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) enter the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (4) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Settlement proceeds to eligible Class Members as fair and equitable; (5) award Lead Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees, costs and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amount; and (6) reimburse Lead Plaintiff for his costs and expenses in representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ALLIED COMMON STOCK IN THE UNITED STATES OR ON A SECURITIES EXCHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES FROM JANUARY 18, 2013, THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST 5, 2013, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail postmarked no later than November 7, 2020 or electronically submitted online no later than November 7, 2020. Your failure to submit or deliver your Proof of Claim form by November 7, 2020, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you are a Class Member and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim form. If you have NOT received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim form, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation and other settlement documents, online at www.AlliedNevadaSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to: Allied Nevada Gold Securities Settlement c/o Epiq P.O. Box 4087 Portland, OR 97208-4087 Please do NOT direct inquiries to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim form, may be made to Lead Counsel: CHARLES J. PIVEN, ESQ. BROWER PIVEN, A Professional Corporation. 3704 North Charles Street, #1301 Baltimore, MD 21218 Email: piven@browerpiven.com If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked or delivered no later than September 28, 2020, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All Class Members who have not requested exclusion from the Class will be bound by the Settlement even if they do not submit a timely Proof of Claim form. If you are a Class Member, you have the right to comment or object to final certification of the Class, the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, Lead Plaintiff's Counsel's application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 33 1/3% of the Settlement amount and/or reimbursement of their litigation expenses not to exceed $450,000.00, and/or Lead Plaintiff's request for reimbursement of his time and expenses representing the Class not to exceed $10,000.00. Any comment or objection must be filed with the Court and mailed or delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that it is postmarked or delivered no later than September 28, 2020, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. If you object to the final certification of the Class, the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, Lead Plaintiff's application for an award of attorneys' fees and/or reimbursement of their Litigation expenses and/or Lead Plaintiff's request for reimbursement of his expenses representing the Class, and wish to be heard at the Settlement Hearing on November 20, 2020, you may ask the Court to do so by including with your objection a statement saying that it is your "notice of intention to appear in the Allied Nevada Gold Securities Settlement." Any Class Member may enter an appearance in the Action, individually or through counsel of their own choice and at their own expense. If you wish to appear, you or your counsel must file with the Clerk of the Court and deliver to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel a notice of such appearance no later than September 23, 2020, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.AlliedNevadaSecuritiesSettlement.com. [GN] ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Irwindale Antitrust Suit Over E-Cig Marketing ----------------------------------------------------------------- IRWINDALE FUEL STATION, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC, and JUUL LABS, INC., Defendants, Case 3:20-cv-04736 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all persons in the United States which indirectly purchased Juul e-cigarettes for resale, against Defendants Altria Group, Inc., Altria Enterprises LLC and Juul Labs, Inc. for damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws, and the laws of unjust enrichment, and demand a trial by jury. According to the lawsuit, horizontal competitors Juul and Altria entered into agreements that eliminated competition by Altria in the market for closed system electronic cigarettes in exchange for transferring to Altria a partial ownership interest in JUUL. These agreements effectuated a horizontal allocation of the market. JUUL and Altria agreed that the latter would exit the e-cigarette market entirely and instead become a minority shareholder in JUUL. This conduct constitutes a per se violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and constituted an unlawful acquisition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The agreements also provide the basis for the claims that JUUL attempted to monopolize and monopolized the relevant market of e-cigarettes sold in the United States and its territories in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and violated state Antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes were injured by the elimination of the Altria Group as a competitor in the closed e-cigarette market, paid supracompetitive prices for JUUL's e-cigarettes as a result, and were denied the benefits of competitive innovation that could have existed had the Altria Group stayed in the market as an independent competitor. Altria Group, Inc. is an American corporation and one of the world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and related products. Altria Enterprises LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Altria Group based in Virginia. Juul Labs, Inc. is the leading manufacturer of closed-system e-cigarettes based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pedram Minoofar, Esq. Navid Yadegar, Esq. YADEGAR, MINOOFAR & SOLEYMANI LLP 1875 Century Park East Suite 1240 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 499-0140 Facsimile: (888) 534-0290 ALVARADO RESTAURANT: Faces Wallace Suit Over Wage Abuse Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Wallace, on behalf of herself and certain other current and former non-exempt employees v. ALVARADO RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; PALO ALTO, INC., a Colorado corporation; PALO VERDE, INC., a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV26260 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 13, 2020), alleges that the Defendants are engaged in an ongoing and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, in violation of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants have implemented policies and practices which failed to provide the Plaintiff with timely and duty-free meal periods. The Defendants did not adequately inform the Plaintiff of her right to take meal periods under California law. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff premium wages for meal periods that were missed, late, interrupted, or shortened in violation of California law. The Defendants regularly failed to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiff when she worked in excess of 8 hours in a single work day and/or 40 hours in a single work week, or in excess of 12 hours in a single work day and/or 80 hours in a single work week. The Defendants regularly failed to pay her at least minimum wages for all hours worked, the Plaintiff alleges. She contends that the Defendants failed to reimburse her for all necessary business-related expenses. The Defendants knew or should have known that they had a duty to compensate the Plaintiff pursuant to California law. The Defendants had the financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to do so, and falsely represented to the Plaintiff that they paid all wages owed to her, all in order to increase the Defendants' profits, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a team member from September 2014 to 2019. The Defendants are a YUM Brand franchisee operating numerous Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut restaurants throughout the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Davis, Esq. Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. S. Emi Minne, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 Email: heather@protectionlawgroup.com amir@protectionlawgroup.com emi@protectionlawgroup.com AMERICAN CORPORATE: Gomez Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT & Other Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------------- IGNACIO GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN CORPORATE SECURITY, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00024045-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., July 13, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for several labor law violations pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 including failure to pay straight, regular rate wages for all work performed; failure to pay all overtime and double-time wages; failure to provide meal, rest, and recovery periods; failure to pay wages due at termination and during employment; intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statements; failure to pay employees two times per month; and failure to adopt a complaint sick pay/paid time off policy. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a security personnel in California. American Corporate Security, Inc. is a company that provides security guard service with its principal place of business located in Stockton, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Mara, Esq. Matthew Crawford, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM, PC 2650 Camino del Rio North, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Tollefson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- The case, JAMES TOLLEFSON, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00168 (W.D. Tex., July 13, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an inspector from approximately July 2019 to March 2020. Plaintiff claims that he was required by Defendant to regularly work over 40 hours each week, normally 5-6 days per week at 10-12 hours per day, throughout her employment with Defendant. However, Defendant paid Plaintiff on a day rate basis without any additional compensation for overtime wages for those hours he worked in excess of 40. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation operates oil and gas industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and – Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (281) 885-8630 Fax: (281) 885-8813 Email: bsosamorris@smnlawfirm.com jneuman@smnlawfirm.com ANGUS PROVING: Valdivia Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Valdivia, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ANGUS PROVING SERVICES, LLC; ANGUS MEASUREMENT SERVICES, LP and ROBERT TONKIN, Case No. 7:20-cv-00171 (W.D. Tex., July 13, 2020), is brought on behalf of all current and former employees of the Defendant, who were paid on a job-rate basis without overtime during the past three years to recover back wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendant violated the FLSA by employing the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees "for a workweek longer than forty 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," according to the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a welder from 2010 to November 2019. Angus Proving and Angus Measurement are oilfield services companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net APELLES LLC: Ismani Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as HASHIME ISMANI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. APELLES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01089 (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. 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 ARCHER DANIELS: Manipulates Ethanol Prices, Green Plains et al Say ------------------------------------------------------------------ GREEN PLAINS TRADE GROUP LLC, GREEN PLAINS INC., GREEN PLAINS WOOD RIVER LLC, GREEN PLAINS ORD LLC, GREEN PLAINS ATKINSON LLC, GREEN PLAINS CENTRAL CITY LLC, GREEN PLAINS YORK LLC, GREEN PLAINS SHENANDOAH LLC, GREEN PLAINS OTTER TAIL LLC, GREEN PLAINS FAIRMONT LLC, GREEN PLAINS HEREFORD LLC, GREEN PLAINS MOUNT VERNON LLC, GREEN PLAINS MADISON LLC, GREEN PLAINS HOPEWELL LLC, GREEN PLAINS SUPERIOR LLC, GREEN PLAINS OBION LLC, GREEN PLAINS BLUFFTON LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00279 (D. Neb., July 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and tortious interference with contractual relations. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated ethanol producers, allege that the Defendant manipulated the derivative contracts market through implementing a strategy that aims to decline the physical prices at the Kinder Morgan Argo Terminal in Argo, Illinois. The Defendant's strategy includes (i) flooding the Argo Terminal with ethanol, and (ii) hurriedly lowering offers or accepting low priced bids as the dominant seller in the Market on Close (MOC) pricing window, which controls much of the pricing for the physical ethanol market. The Defendant used its size, proximity, and relationships to exploit and overwhelm the Argo terminal and force a desired, self-serving pricing outcome upon other financial and physical market participants. The Defendant's downward manipulation of prices at the Argo Terminal inevitably reduced the prices that ethanol producers received for sales under those contracts. The foregoing targeting of producers in the performance of their ethanol sales contracts is unlawful tortious interference with contractual relations. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and other ethanol producers are harmed by depriving them of the benefits of a fair market, lowering the Argo Terminal-based price index which the Defendant knew producers use as the pricing mechanism for their sales contracts, and depriving them of the benefits of contracting/pricing free from tortious interference. Green Plains Trade Group LLC is an ethanol fuel producer with its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Inc. is an ethanol fuel producer with its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Wood River LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Wood River, Nebraska. Green Plains Ord LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Atkinson LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Atkinson, Nebraska. Green Plains Central City LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Central City, Nebraska. Green Plains York LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in York, Nebraska. Green Plains Shenandoah LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Shenandoah, Iowa. Green Plains Otter Tail LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Fergus Falls, Minnesota. Green Plains Fairmont LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Fairmont, Minnesota. Green Plains Hereford LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Hereford, Texas. Green Plains Mount Vernon LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Mount Vernon, Indiana. Green Plains Madison LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Madison, Illinois. Green Plains Hopewell LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Hopewell, Virginia. Green Plains Superior LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Superior, Iowa. Green Plains Obion LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Obion, Tennessee. Green Plains Bluffton LLC is an operator of bioprocessing plant that produces ethanol in Bluffton, Indiana. Archer Daniel Midlands Company is a producer and seller of ethanol in the Midwest and throughout the United States, with its global headquarters located at 77 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Domina, Esq. DOMINA LAW GROUP PC LLO 2425 South 144th Street Omaha, NE 68144 Telephone: (402) 493-4100 E-mail: ddomina@dominalaw.com - and – Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Mark S. Hamill, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com mhamill@dicellolevitt.com - and – Greg G. Gutzler, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor New York, NY 11022 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com ARTHUR BLASZCZYSZYN INSURANCE: Katt Files ADA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Blaszczyszyn Insurance Agency, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Arthur Blaszczyszyn Insurance Agency, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02052-KLM (D. Colo., July 14, 2020). Arthur Blaszczyszyn Insurance Agency, Inc. is engaged in the Insurance business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. Marcus & Zelman, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (732) 695-3282 Email: ari@marcuszelman.com ASSET RECOVERY: Nakshin Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------- ANNA NAKSHINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-02040-PX (D. Md., July 10, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff signed promissory notes as a guarantor for her brother's private student loan with Doral Bank FSB in or around January 2008 which her brother defaulted in or before January 2015. Consequently, the servicer of the loan contacted Plaintiff for payment, began reporting the default on Plaintiff's credit report, and transferred the defaulted loan to Defendant for collection. Notwithstanding the terms of the agreement made by Plaintiff with the servicer in or around November 2019 to reduce the amount due on the loan from approximately $37,000 to $16,000 to be paid in monthly installments of $500, Defendant sent collection letters to Plaintiff dated on or about January 27, 2020, March 6, 2020, April 6, 2020, and June 8, 2020 which demanded payment for the full loan balance without offering balance reduction or payment plan according to the terms of the agreement. The complaint asserts these claims: -- Defendant sent correspondence requesting payment of a full amount without reference to any balance reduction or payment plan in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(2) and (10); -- Defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade practice by sending correspondence that gave the impression that Plaintiff was required to pay the full balance of the Loan in violation of Md. Code ann., Com. Law section 13-301(1); and -- Defendant deprived Plaintiff and consumers of truthful information regarding their debt obligations. Asset Recovery Solutions LLC is a licensed collection agency in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney L. Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: 202-827-9980 Email: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com - and – Ingmar Goldson, Esq. THE GOLDSON LAW OFFICE 1734 Elton Road, Suite 210 Silver Spring, MD 20903 Tel: 240-780-8829 Email: igoldson@goldsonlawoffice.com ATLANTIC RECORDING: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- YONY SOSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05185-AT (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website -- https://www.atlanticrecords.com/ -- is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Atlantic Recording Corporation records and sells music. The Company offers a portfolio of music collection sung by various artists. Atlantic Recording serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com AUDI AG: Accused in Suit of Ignoring Start/Stop System Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP announced that a class-action lawsuit filed July 9, 2020 accuses Audi of willfully ignoring a defect affecting the auto start/stop system in tens of thousands of 2017 - 2020 Audi vehicles that can "cause the power steering and brake assist to turn off while the vehicle is still moving, and delays acceleration, steering and braking," according to attorneys at Hagens Berman. The defect at the center of the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, affects all 2017 - 2020 Audi vehicles, excluding electric and hybrid models. The lawsuit states that the defect "could result in injuries or even deaths," yet Audi refuses to repair or replace the defective systems and continues to sell unsafe vehicles, according to attorneys. Owners report that Audi dealerships have been of no help, and that in a service bulletin issued by Audi to mechanics in 2018, the automaker acknowledged complaints, but gave no solution. If you own a 2017 - 2020 Audi and have experienced engine shutdown while still moving, or delays in your brakes, acceleration, power steering when restarting from a stop, find out more about the lawsuit and your rights. "In its warranty to its own customers, Audi says it is dedicated to ‘exceptional quality, dependability, and peace of mind,' but it has failed to honor its promise, choosing instead to ignore this defect, keep it from owners and not offer repairs," said Thomas E. Loeser, Hagens Berman partner and attorney representing the class of vehicle owners. "Audi has historically shown its disregard for playing by the rules in its involvement in the Dieselgate scandal of its parent company Volkswagen, and as we did in that litigation, we intend in this case to hold Audi to the law and accountability it owes consumers." The lawsuit accuses Audi of violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as multiple state consumer-protection laws, and says the automaker has committed fraudulent concealment. The lawsuit seeks repayment for owners of affected Audi vehicles for repairs they have made, and for Audi's breach of warranty and failure to act in good faith, among other remedies. Signs of the Audi Start/Stop Defect When the defect manifests, owner complaints in online forums indicate that affected vehicles sometimes flash a code for a "start/stop" malfunction. The system installed in gasoline powered models is designed to curtail emissions that occur while the vehicle is stopped in traffic, parked or not moving. Yet attorneys accuse Audi of allowing this system to "come at the cost of reliable operation of the basic safety systems in a car, namely the brakes, steering and acceleration." Owners report that the defect shuts down the engine before they have come to a complete stop, which drastically increases the force required to turn the steering wheel and the pedal force required to completely stop the vehicle. After the vehicle is stopped, owners report that the defect creates a delay between when their foot is removed from the brake and when the engine turns back on. During this delay, the driver can't move the steering wheel or accelerate. When the engine finally does turn back on, drivers report that the car lurches forward, rather than accelerating gradually. " . . . critical braking, steering and accelerating functions of the Affected Vehicles shut off too soon and restart too late," the lawsuit states. Audi Owner Reports: ". . . dangerous . . ." and a "major design defect" Dozens of reports to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) document the start/stop defect, both indicating that Audi has likely been made aware of the widespread issue. The following are excerpts of owner reports filed with NHTSA: -- "It is dangerous...car will not respond after a few seconds. ...suddenly the car will surge ahead. This is not an isolated incident..." -- "This is a major design defect in the auto start/stop system and occurs every time the system is active." -- ". . . vehicle feels like the brakes have been artificially and aggressively applied to bring the car to a complete stop before the start/stop engine feature otherwise should have engaged. ...For vehicles following close behind, the effect will be that the Audi vehicle in front of them will appear to lurch to a stop, thus creating a risk of rear-end collision." -- "I almost got hit because of this and it is very scary not to be able to steer out of the way when necessary!!! This is horrible function of the car which can cause a lot of accidents!!" Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Audi for the start/stop defect in its 2017 – 2020 models. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with nine offices across the country. The firm's tenacious drive for plaintiffs' rights has earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN] AVIVA INSURANCE: Faces Business Interruption Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Greg Meckbach, writing for Canadian Underwriter, reports that the question of whether non-essential businesses that closed during the pandemic are entitled to claim insurance -- specifically, for cover arising as a direct result of an outbreak of contagious or infectious disease within 25 kilometres that is required by law to be reported to the authorities -- is headed before a Canadian judge. Nordik Windows Inc. is the representative plaintiff in a proposed $100-million class action lawsuit against Aviva Insurance Company of Canada announced recently. The client's law firm, Thomson Rogers, provided the statement of claim late on July 7 to Canadian Underwriter. Allegations that Aviva is in breach of an insurance contract by denying coverage have not been proven in court. Canadian Underwriter reached out to Aviva Canada on July 6 seeking comment but has not heard back yet. The lawsuit proposes to represent businesses that suffered business interruption during the pandemic and were covered under very specific Aviva Canada policies. One policy referenced in the statement of claim is Aviva's "enterprise insurance" policy, which includes business income under Form 912000-01 or other forms containing "negative publicity" and/or "restricted access" coverage, according to Thomson Rogers's court filing. Among the policy wordings at issue in that coverage dispute is insurance for loss of business income as a "direct result" of "an outbreak of contagious or infectious disease within 25 kilometres of the 'premises' that is required by law to be reported by government authorities." Other policy wording includes loss of business income "when ingress or egress . . is restricted whole or in part . . . by order of civil authority . . [by] an outbreak of a contagious or infectious disease that is required by law to be reported to government authorities." When a court is hearing a coverage dispute over business interruption arising from COVID-19, the specifics of that client's policy wording will be critical in determining whether the client is entitled to coverage, insurance defence lawyers have told Canadian Underwriter. Nordik windows Inc. has three locations in the Ottawa area -- two in Ontario and another in Aylmer, on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River. The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic Mar. 11. Later that month, the Ontario government ordered all businesses to close unless they were on a list of "essential" workplaces. Essential workplaces included insurance companies and brokerages, supermarkets, convenience stores, and collision repair centres. Nordik Windows' workplaces were not considered essential, the firm said in its statement of claim against Aviva. The lawsuit is one of several business interruption coverage disputes filed so far in Canada. In Britain, the Financial Conduct Authority recently filed a test case with the High Court of England and Wales. FCA is scheduled to serve arguments July 10. The court's ruling in that test case will be binding in Britain on the insurers that are parties to that test case in respect of the policy wordings considered by the court. It will not necessarily be binding outside of Britain but could set a precedent for Canadian courts, said Eric Charleston, Toronto-based associate with Miller Thomson LLP, in an earlier interview with Canadian Underwriter. Among the 17 policy wordings the British test case will consider are: -- any occurrence of a notifiable human disease within a radius of 25 miles of the premises -- your inability to use the insured premises due to restrictions imposed by a . . . public authority during the period of insurance following . . . an occurrence of any human infectious or human contagious disease, an outbreak of which must be notified to the local authority. [GN] BANK OF NEW YORK: Scott+Scott Files Breach of Contract Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international securities and consumer rights litigation firm, on July 8 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee of the Pacific Coast Oil Trust ("the Trustee") and Pacific Coast Energy Company LP ("PCEC"). The action, which was filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, and is captioned Evergreen Capital Management LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, asserts claims for breach of contract against the Trustee and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against PCEC, on behalf of Trust Unitholders of Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the "Trust"). The lawsuit alleges that PCEC has improperly deprived the Trust and Trust Unitholders of revenue by incorrectly calculating current asset retirement obligations ("ARO") based on future oil and well abandonment costs in violation of GAAP and industry practices. The lawsuit also alleges that the Trustee has been grossly negligent by taking inadequate actions to respond to PCEC's conduct. By bringing this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks an order forcing PCEC to stop its improper calculations, which have prevented the Trust and Unitholders from receiving the revenue that they are due. Plaintiff also seeks consequential and compensatory damages arising from Defendants' conduct. If you wish to discuss this action, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Jing-Li Yu of Scott+Scott at (646) 992-4755 or via email at jyu@scott-scott.com. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Ohio, and Virginia. [GN] BAYER AG: Scraps $1.25BB Roundup Weedkiller Settlement Proposal --------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Randazzo, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Bayer AG is scrapping a $1.25 billion proposal for resolving future lawsuits over whether its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, highlighting the difficulty of settling litigation over a product still on the market. The snag doesn't affect deals worth up to $9.6 billion that Bayer reached with lawyers representing tens of thousands of plaintiffs who blame Roundup for making them sick. [GN] BJ'S WHOLESALE: Young Asserts Breach of ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------- BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05416 (S.D. N.Y., July 14, 2020). BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., commonly referred as BJ's, is an American membership-only warehouse club chain based in Westborough, Massachusetts, operating on the East Coast of the United States and the states of Ohio and Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com BMW: Indirect Purchasers' Federal RICO Claims Dismissed in Rickman ------------------------------------------------------------------ James Bogan III of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP wrote an article on JD Supra titled "RICO class actions: District of New Jersey dismisses with prejudice federal RICO claims asserted by indirect purchasers": Takeaway: Class actions brought under federal RICO present significant risk, because they present the opportunity for certification of a nationwide class under a federal statute and the remedies provided under federal RICO - similar to federal antitrust remedies - include treble damages and attorneys' fees. Accordingly, attorneys defending such class actions usually seek the dismissal of RICO claims at the earliest possible opportunity. A recent decision by the District of New Jersey in one of the "clean diesel/defeat device" series of class actions reinforces the principle that, because federal RICO was modeled on the federal antitrust laws (the Clayton Act), the "indirect purchaser" standing rule applies and will support the early dismissal of RICO claims by indirect purchasers. In Rickman v. BMW of North America, Civ. No. 18-4363(KM) (JBC), 2020 WL 3468250, at *1 (D.N.J., June 25, 2020), over forty named plaintiffs filed a putative class action against BMW and Robert Bosch entities for their alleged participation in the "clean-diesel emissions scandal." Their amended complaint asserted one claim under federal RICO and seventy-eight counts under the statutes and common law of various states. But none of the named plaintiffs' automobiles were purchased directly from BMW or Bosch (Bosch allegedly controlled the "defeat device" software). Rather, the named plaintiffs alleged that they purchased their cars from either a BMW dealer, a private party, or at auction. Moreover, the allegations showed that most of the cars were purchased on the secondary market and not from any authorized BMW dealer. In Holmes v. Sec. Inv'r Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992), the Supreme Court held that because 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) – the provision granting a private right of action under RICO - was modeled on the Clayton Act, federal antitrust principles govern civil RICO claims. In McCarthy v. Recordex Service, Inc., 80 F.3d 842 (3d Cir. 1996), the Third Circuit applied Holmes when it dismissed, for lack of standing, antitrust and RICO claims asserted by plaintiffs who were not the direct purchasers of allegedly overpriced photocopies. Applying the indirect purchaser rule, as applied in Holmes, McCarthy, and number of district court decisions in the Third Circuit (including several by the District of New Jersey), the district court dismissed the named plaintiffs' RICO claims. 2020 WL 3468250, at *8-10. Further, because any further amendment would be futile, the district court specified that the dismissal was with prejudice. Id. at *17. But because federal subject matter jurisdiction was not eliminated by the dismissal - the plaintiffs' claims gave rise to both regular diversity jurisdiction as well as diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act – the plaintiffs were free to prosecute their seventy-eight claims under state law. Id. at *4. And the district court rejected all of the defendants' challenges to the plaintiff state-law claims, deferring several arguments for later consideration at the class certification phase. Id. at *10-17. [GN] BUCKLES & BUCKLES: 6th Cir. Flips Merit Orders in Van Hoven Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated a district court ruling on damages award and attorneys' fees in the case captioned MAUREEN VAN HOVEN, FOR HERSELF AND CLASS MEMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BUCKLES & BUCKLES, P.L.C.; GERALDINE C. BUCKLES; MICHAEL H.R. BUCKLES, Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos. 18-2399, 19-1078, (6th Cir.). Maureen Van Hoven, a Michigan attorney, defaulted on a credit card debt with Discover several years ago. Discover hired Buckles & Buckles, a law firm, to collect the debt. The law firm filed a debt collection lawsuit in state court and won. Van Hoven didn't pay. Buckles & Buckles invoked the procedure to collect this debt, filing four requests for a writ of garnishment over the course of a year. Buckles added the costs of prior failed garnishments, those that didn't result in any money changing hands. Van Hoven didn't object to the law firm's garnishment requests in Michigan state court, as the Rules permit. She instead filed a class action lawsuit in federal court under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which prohibits debt collectors from making false statements in their dunning demands. Van Hoven won her class action. The court found that Buckles & Buckles owed 168 class members $3,662 in damages, $22 per person on average. Van Hoven's attorneys sought $186,680 in attorney's fees, and the court granted their request in full. Buckles & Buckles appealed the merits ruling and the attorney's fee award. The Appellate Court notes that Van Hoven claims that Buckles & Buckles made two types of "false, deceptive, or misleading representation[s]" under the Act when they presented their garnishment requests to the state court clerk: (1) they sought the costs of each garnishment request under Michigan law, and (2) they sought the costs of prior failed garnishments under Michigan law. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e. * Current Garnishment Costs. The Sixth Circuit note that when when Buckles & Buckles asked for all total costs, including those of any garnishment request to date, it did not make a "false, deceptive, or misleading representation" and therefore did not violate the Act. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e. It was a reasonable request at the time - and thus not false at the time - and by the Sixth Circuit's lights reflected the best interpretation of the Rules anyway. * Failed Garnishment Costs. The decision of Buckles & Buckles to include the cost of prior failed garnishments is another matter. In these instances, the law firm included the costs of garnishments that failed because the garnishee did not owe the debtor any money, did not hold any property subject to garnishment, or was not the debtor's employer. MCR 3.101(R)(2) (2014). At the time of this lawsuit, the Rules made clear that creditors were "not entitled to recover the costs of [the] garnishment" when that happened. That makes including them a false representation under the Act. But the Act does not punish every factual and legal misrepresentation, only culpable ones. Debt collectors are protected from liability if they can show that their "violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error." 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k(c). Buckles & Buckles claims to have just such a procedure for potential factual misrepresentations. But Buckles & Buckles never had a chance to prove that its procedure sufficed given the way the case proceeded below. It deserves that chance. The Sixth Circuit thus remands the case to allow the district court to determine whether Buckles & Buckles made "bona fide" mistakes of fact in including certain costs of prior failed garnishments and whether its procedure for preventing such mistakes suffices. To the extent the record needs development on this issue, the parties are free to seek additional discovery. Moreover, the Sixth Circuit notes that with the case trimmed down, the class may need to be trimmed down or decertified. Because the merits remain an open question, it's likewise an open question whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages and whether their attorneys are entitled to fees. The Sixth Circuit leaves these matters to the district court in the first instance. In sum, the Sixth Circuit reverses the district court's orders on the merits, vacate the orders on class certification, damages, and attorney's fees, and remand for proceedings consistent with its opinion. A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's January 16, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/rzvgoag from Leagle.com ARGUED: Roger L. Premo ,30300 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334, for Appellants. Michael O. Nelson , 1104 Fuller NE, Grand Rapids, MI, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Roger L. Premo , Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellants. Michael O. Nelson , Grand Rapids, Michigan, Kevin J. Rogers , Phillip C. Rogers , 40 Pearl St NW Ste 336, Grand Rapids, MI 49503-3026, for Appellee. Jeffrey A. Topor - jtopor@snllp.com - SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae in 18-2399. CALHOUN COUNTY, MI: Court Partly Grants TRO Motion in Malam Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Janet Malam, Petitioner-Plaintiff, and Judith E. Levy Qaid Alhalmi, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, Mag. v. Rebecca Adducci, et al., Respondent-Defendants, Case No. 20-10829 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Judith E. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as a Preliminary Injunction. The opinion marks the seventh time the Court has assessed the constitutionality of continued detention of medically vulnerable non-citizen civil detainees at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility during the pendency of the COVID-19 pandemic. The legal issues before the Court are narrow: whether four civil detainees face a high risk of irreparable injury from COVID-19, whether the Defendants have shown deliberate indifference to the medical needs of these Plaintiffs in crafting and implementing their response to the pandemic, and whether the public interest favors the Plaintiffs' release. So too is the relief requested: the Plaintiffs do not, at this time, seek sweeping injunctive relief that would insert the Court into the day-to-day management of either U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") or the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"); instead, the Plaintiffs request the immediate release of four individuals currently detained at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility. On March 30, 2020, Petitioner Janet Malam filed an Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On April 3, 2020, the Court allowed Plaintiff-Intervenors Amer Toma and Ruby Briselda Escobar to intervene. On April 5, 2020, Plaintiffs Toma and Escobar filed an Emergency Petition for Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive Relief. On April 26, 15 named Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. The Plaintiffs' proposed class consists of all noncitizens who are detained in ICE custody at Calhoun. The putative class seeks declaratory relief that continued detention under current conditions at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility constitutes impermissible punishment under the Fifth Amendment. The Named Plaintiffs additionally seek injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a subclass of "medically vulnerable individuals," defined as all non-citizens who are detained in ICE custody in the Calhoun County Correctional Center, and who have one or more risk factors placing them at heightened risk of severe illness or death if exposed to COVID-19. The subclass seeks habeas relief and declaratory relief that continued confinement at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility constitutes impermissible punishment and cannot guarantee reasonable safety for medically vulnerable detainees. Named Plaintiffs Alhalmi, Cardona Ramirez, Escobar, Medina Euceda, Rodriguez Salabarria, Rosales Borboa, Toma, and Zhang additionally seek injunctive relief on this claim. Also on April 26, 2020, six named Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order. Four of these six Plaintiffs -- Qaid Alhalmi, Tomas Cardona Ramirez, Damary Rodriguez Salabarria, and Emanuel Rosales Borboa -- claim that because of their age and/or underlying medical conditions, their continued civil detention violates their Fifth Amendment rights by exposing them to a substantial risk of serious illness and death related to COVID-19. Accordingly, these Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order requiring their immediate release from confinement. Two Plaintiffs -- Julio Fernando Medina Euceda4 and Min Dan Zhang -- seek alternative forms of relief. The Defendants responded on April 29, 2020, and the Plaintiffs replied on May 5, 2020. The Court granted the Defendants leave to file a sur-reply, which the Defendants filed on May 6, 2020. On May 7, 2020, the Court held a hearing by video teleconference and heard oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion. Because she finds that Plaintiffs Alhami and Cardona Ramirez have shown a high risk of irreparable injury absent relief, a likelihood of success on the merits, and that the public interest favors their release, Judge Levy grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion. The Judge orders supplemental briefing with respect to Plaintiffs Rodriguez Salabarria and Rosales Borboa's health conditions and the applicability of a punishment standard to the Plaintiffs' claims. The Judge denies the Plaintiffs' new requests for additional relief not contained within the Plaintiffs' motion. In light of the foregoing, Judge Levy granted a preliminary injunction requiring Plaintiffs Alhalmi and Cardona Ramirez' immediate release from ICE Custody. The Plaintiffs will be subject to the following restrictions: The Plaintiffs are subject to 14 days of home quarantine; the Plaintiffs must comply with all Michigan Executive Orders; and the Plaintiffs must appear at all hearings pertaining to their removal proceedings. The Respondents may impose other reasonable nonconfinement terms of supervision. The Respondents are further restrained from arresting Petitioner for civil immigration detention purposes until the State of Emergency in Michigan (related to COVID-19) is lifted or until further Court Order stating otherwise. The Judge ordered supplemental briefing with respect to Plaintiff Salabarria and Plaintiff Borboa's health conditions and the applicability of a freedom from punishment standard to the Plaintiffs' claims. The parties may each submit a responsive filing. The Court denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' requests for relief other than immediate release. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/pYTzEz from Leagle.com. CANADA POST: Lambert Avocat Files Delivery Service Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- John Meagher, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a Montreal law firm has filed an application to launch a class action against Canada Post. Lambert Avocat Inc. filed the application in Superior Court on July 6, seeking to offer compensation for those who paid for an accelerated delivery service offer by Canada Post. The proposed class action alleges that Canada Post failed to meet guaranteed delivery deadlines. The class action aims to claim a full refund for "every person whose delivery date failed to be met by Canada Post, but also $100 in compensatory damages as well as $300 in punitive damages." In a statement, Lambert Avocat said it found Canada Post at fault for offering accelerated services "under false or misleading representations" despite being aware that the COVID-19 pandemic was causing additional delivery delays. "While Canada Post is currently warning its customers against possible delays in delivery through a banner at the top of their website, their warning does not mention unequivocally that their on-time delivery guarantee is presently suspended," the statement noted. "Furthermore, Canada Post continues to charge their customers full price for their accelerated delivery services and refuses to issue refunds for late deliveries, and this, while knowing they currently cannot guarantee their delivery dates." [GN] CANADA: Gowling Offers Free Legal Advice IDS Settlement Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Nic Meloney, writing for CBC News, reports that following a June 17 Federal Court order, it is now easier for the former students of Indian and federal day schools to get legal advice from lawyers of their choice when applying for the Indian Day Schools (IDS) class action settlement. Free legal advice on settlement claims is being offered by Gowling WLG, the legal firm handling the settlement. Prior to this motion, if day school survivors wanted independent legal representation, their lawyer was required to first obtain permission from the Federal Court to act on their behalf, and often had no assurance their services would be paid for through compensation money. The restrictions discouraged lawyers from taking on claims and created "a barrier to justice" for the former students, said a Saskatchewan lawyer involved in the case. "It was too much of a risk for many good, trauma-informed lawyers who've had a great deal of experience working with residential school survivors," said Saskatoon lawyer Nicholas Racine, who is representing around 100 former IDS students from Alberta and Saskatchewan for their claims. "It became apparent to me that there was an access to justice issue if you have a process that has a chilling effect on experienced lawyers to participate." The new process allows independent lawyers to submit claim application forms on a survivor's behalf, and accept their compensation money in trust. The process requires the lawyer to provide the Federal Court with copies of the agreement with their client, detailing what percentage of the potential compensation money the lawyer will receive for their services. "These are claims brought by victims of childhood physical and sexual abuse . . . so filling out this claim form is reopening old wounds," said Racine. "To have the option of having a lawyer who will look you in the eyes while you tell them your story . . . and to have someone there physically in your presence while that's occurring -- to many, that is very important." Face-to-face option Racine made the motion on behalf of his client Mary Rose Naytowhow, a residential and day school survivor from Sturgeon Lake First Nation, about 150 kilometres north of Saskatoon. He worked with Naytowhow on her participation in the residential school settlement as well. Nayhowtow said she believes that in some situations, independent lawyers will be more effective than Gowling's class counsel lawyers because they can offer more face-to-face contact, services that are specific to the community or nation, and a focus on "healing." "I don't know anything about the other lawyers; I've never worked with somebody like that just by phone," she said. "I was traumatized . . . and I have to relive it now. Having to work with somebody that I never met is not something that I want to do, and I'd sooner work with a lawyer face to face. I would recommend that to my relatives, too." Naytowhow also voiced concern about a lack of mental health supports in the process and said more consideration should be given to helping survivors cope with trauma, "rather than just giving them money." Despite the out-of-pocket cost, Naytowhow said she believes choosing an independent lawyer meant she received more attention and better communication. "I thought . . . I'd sooner pay somebody five or 10 per cent of what I'm getting than work with somebody I don't know." Overcharging for residential schools settlement claims In consideration of the motion by Racine and Naytowhow, Justice Michael Phalen noted the efforts of the plaintiffs and Gowling WLG to avoid "well-recognized problems" stemming from the Indian Residential School (IRS) settlement, where hundreds of lawyers were found to have overcharged or misrepresented residential school survivors during the process. The new process "seeks a balance" between those problems from the IRS process and the survivors' rights to seek their own legal counsel, said Phalen, according to the court documents. Phalen also outlined that survivors must be made aware that free legal services are available prior to engaging another lawyer, and that all of their lawyer's fees and transfers of money still have to be approved by the court. [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Thongstisubskul Sues Over Unlawful Credit Inquiries ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Thongstisubskul, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. & CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 3:20-cv-01306-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., July 10, 2020), is brought to enjoin the deceptive business practices of the Defendants and for damages arising out of their systematic unauthorized credit inquiries, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In 2010, the Plaintiff opened a credit card account with Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. In 2017, Plaintiff also acquired an auto loan from Capital One, N.A. dba Capital One Auto Finance. On August 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed Chapter Seven Bankruptcy in San Diego under case number 18-04845. Both the 2017 auto-loan and the 2010 credit card accounts were included in the Plaintiff's bankruptcy petition. On November 14, 2018, the Plaintiff's debts were discharged pursuant to a court order that was sent electronically to the Defendants by the bankruptcy court. The order advised the Defendants that the Plaintiff's debts had been discharged. The Plaintiff did not reaffirm the debts to make them survive the bankruptcy. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's debts to the Defendants were discharged through bankruptcy, and the accounts were closed. Following November 2018, the Plaintiff no longer had any open accounts with the Defendants. Nevertheless, on January 16, 2019, Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. accessed the Plaintiff's Experian credit report alleging it had a permissible purpose as an account review inquiry. On January 25, 2019, Capital One, N.A. dba Capital One Auto Finance accessed the Plaintiff's Experian credit report as an alleged account review inquiry. On May 28, 2019, Capital One, N.A. conducted an account review or "AR" inquiry of the Plaintiff's Equifax credit report. The Defendants' inquiries and access to the Plaintiff's credit reports for "account reviews" facilitated by Experian and Equifax were entirely unauthorized and without a permissible purpose, the Plaintiff contends. After the discharge order was entered, the Plaintiff did not owe the Defendants any debts, and the Plaintiff's accounts with the Defendants were closed by operation of the bankruptcy discharge, according to the complaint. The Defendants repeatedly accessed the Plaintiff's private and confidential information without his consent or a permissible purpose, thereby, invading his privacy. Much like trespass to real property, which has been unlawful for hundreds of years, an invasion of privacy may not cause monetary damages--but it's an invasion nonetheless, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resides in the County of San Diego, State of California. The Defendants are a national banks headquartered in Glen Allen and McLean, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: yana@kazlg.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 222-7429 Fax: (866) 431-3292 Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com CARNIVAL CORP: O'Neill Sues Over Lack of COVID-19 Measures ---------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN O'NEILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC and PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06218-GW-MRW (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to take appropriate actions and necessary precautionary measures to prevent the outbreak of COVID-19 aboard the Coral Princess cruise ship despite knowledge of the dangers and prior experiences of outbreaks on Diamond Princess and Grand Princess ships. The Defendants' decision to allow the departure of the Coral Princess on March 5, 2020, without implementing precautions or extra sanitization measures showed that they did not learn from the previous outbreaks on their ships, thus unnecessarily risking the health and safety of all passengers and crew on the vessel. As a result of the Defendants' omissions and negligence, the Plaintiff and Class members were placed in actual physical danger of contracting a deadly virus, kept that information from them as long as they could, and then forced them stay in their cabins for weeks until the vessel docked in Miami, Florida. Carnival Corporation & PLC is a British-American cruise operator and travel leisure company, with its headquarters in Miami, Florida. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. is a cruise line owned by Carnival Corporation & PLC, incorporated in Bermuda, with its worldwide headquarters located in Santa Clarita, California within the County of Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison E. Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com - and - Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Rodriguez Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CASCADE COLLECTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00120-JNP-DBP (D. Utah, Filed Feb. 21, 2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying this action as a hybrid class action on behalf of: "all persons with addresses within Utah; who were sent any communication on behalf of Astor Brothers & Co.; to recover a consumer debt; which were not returned undelivered by the United States Postal Service; from February 21, 2019 until February 21, 2020; in which the communication provided the following language: "If you dispute the validity of this debt or any part of it, you must notify us either by writing to Cascade Collections, LLC, P.O. Box 970547, Orem, UT 84097, or by calling toll-free 855-978-7184 or locally (801) 900-3328 within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter; otherwise we will consider this debt to be valid and proceed accordingly. Please pay the Amount Due. We would like to collect the Amount Due in an efficient and convenient way. If you are able to pay the Amount Due in full at once please do so. On the other hand, if you are unable to pay the amount in full at once, we are able to set up a payment plan so that the Amount Due is paid gradually over time. Please note that the Amount Due is the balance as of the date listed above and may or may not include interest, accruing interest, costs, or other fees. Please contact this office to determine how the Amount Due is calculated and to determine the balance."" 2. appointing himself as the class representative; and 3. appointing his attorneys, David J. McGlothlin and Ryan L. McBride as class counsel. The proposed class, which consists of 188 individuals receiving the same allegedly defective letters, meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) as well as Rule 23(b)(3) and (b)(2. The suit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cascade Collections is owned by Rob Robertson, who has over 40 years experience in the collection business.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com CBSC INC: Angeles Sues in N.D. Ohio Alleging Violation of FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBSC, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sarah Angeles, a/k/a Sarah Faber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CBSC, Inc., d/b/a Centralized Business Solutions Company, and John Does 1 - 25, Case No. 5:20-cv-01540 (N.D. Ohio, July 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. CBSC, Inc. provides service in recovering the assets entrusted to it by its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq. 23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 800-5529 Fax: (216) 514-4987 Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com CIRCLE K STORES: James Sues Over Illegal Background Check --------------------------------------------------------- Samuel James, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Circle K Stores Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01406, (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2020), seeks statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970. Defendant operates convenience stores across the United States and are users of consumer reports for employment purposes. It obtains background checks on job applicants for employment purposes as part of its regular screening process. It allegedly procured consumer reports on James for employment purposes, without providing a lawful disclosure before obtaining a copy of the consumer report. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, #600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 257-0572 Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com CKF ENTERPRISES: Rule 23 Class in Ware Gets Prelim. Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JULIA WARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CKF ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5: 19-183-DCR (E.D. Ky.), Judge Danny C. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs Ware and Edwards' unopposed motion for conditional certification of the FLSA collective, preliminary certification of the Rule 23 class, and preliminary approval of a settlement agreement. The action involves the alleged failure of the Defendants to classify consultants as employees rather than independent contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act ("KWHA"), Kentucky Revised Statutes ("KRS"). Plaintiffs Ware and Edwards have filed one claim individually and on behalf of a collective for violation of the FLSA. Ware also proceeds with two claims for violation of the KWHA individually and on behalf of a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties initially reached a settlement in principle in late 2019. In line with that development, the Plaintiffs previously filed an unopposed motion for, inter alia, conditional certification of the FLSA collective, preliminary certification of the Rule 23 class, and preliminary approval of a settlement agreement. The Court denied that motion without prejudice on March 11, 2020. The Plaintiffs have now renewed their unopposed motion and have tendered an amended proposed settlement agreement. Specifically, they request: (1) preliminary approval of the proposed agreement; (2) conditional certification of the FLSA collective for the purposes of settlement; (3) preliminary certification of the Rule 23 class ("Kentucky class") for the purposes of settlement; (4) preliminary appointment of Ware and Edwards as the class representatives; (5) preliminary approval of the Plaintiffs' counsel as the class counsel; (6) approval of the FLSA collective settlement notice; (7) approval of the class settlement notice; and (8) approval of their proposed schedule and procedure for final approval of the agreement. The parties have agreed to a $595,000 gross settlement amount. The Plaintiffs' counsel variably estimate that the figure represents approximately 60% or 70%-80% of the alleged damages suffered by consultants working for CKF who were not paid appropriate wages under the FLSA and Kentucky law. The consultants form the pool of possible Settlement Participants eligible to receive a settlement award and release claims under the proposed agreement. They are the individuals who: (i) personally or through a corporation or other business entity owned in whole or in part by the Consultant, contracted directly with CKF Enterprises, Inc., to perform go-live consulting work for customers of CKF; (ii) worked more than 40 hours in at least one (l) workweek while performing such work between April 25, 2016, and Dec. 23, 2019 anywhere in the United States, or between April 25, 2014 and Dec. 23, 2019 if in Kentucky; and (iii) were classified by CKF as an independent contractor while performing such work. The Plaintiffs have indicated that approximately 652 consultants stand to benefit from the agreement according to records produced by the Defendants. Of these 652 consultants, 530 are putative members of the FLSA collective, i.e. individuals who performed worked for CKF somewhere in the United States between April 25, 2016 and Dec. 23, 2019. About 381 of the 652 consultants are putative members of the Kentucky class, as they performed work for CKF in Kentucky between April 25, 2014 and Dec. 23, 2019. And 122 of the consultants are only members of the Kentucky class and are not members of the collective because they did not work for the defendants between April 25, 2016 and Dec. 23, 2019. Thus, 259 consultants are putative members of the FLSA collective and the Kentucky class. The 530 putative FLSA collective members will receive a FLSA collective settlement notice and a FLSA opt-in consent and claim form subsequent to preliminary approval of the proposed agreement. It will allow individuals who have not yet opted into the collective action to opt-in. Any individual who submits an opt-in form will be considered an opt-in Plaintiff regardless of whether such a form was submitted prior to or after preliminary approval of the proposed agreement. The 122 consultants who are only putative members of the Kentucky class will receive "Kentucky Class Only" settlement notices and claim forms. The proposed agreement outlines the notice process. Within 10 business days of receiving this information from CKF, the Plaintiffs' counsel will make the initial mailings. Several payments and costs are deducted from the $595,000 gross settlement amount to determine the net settlement amount of the proposed agreement, i.e. the amount which will be allocated to consultants who decide to participate in the settlement. $10,000 is allocated to Ware and Edwards ($5,000 apiece) as service awards for their efforts as named Plaintiffs. Up to $198,333.33, one-third of the gross settlement amount, in attorney's fees plus the Plaintiffs' counsel's out-of-pocket costs currently estimated to be $5,652.68 are deducted from the gross settlement amount. Settlement administration costs are also deducted from the gross settlement amount, and they are not expected to exceed $6,000. Estimating that administration costs are $6,000, Ware and Edwards take $5,000 service awards, and the Plaintiffs' counsel takes $198,333.33 while expending $5,652.68 out-of-pocket, the net settlement amount to be paid out to individual claimants under the proposed agreement would be approximately $375,013.99. Consultants who decide to participate in the settlement will receive per capita and pro rata allocations from the net settlement amount. Each participating consultant will receive a per capita $100 award in exchange for the applicable release of claims. The remaining money from the net settlement amount will then be divided pro rata among consultants participating in the settlement "based on the actual number of uncompensated overtime hours" as determined by the Defendants' timekeeping and payroll records. Each such uncompensated overtime hour paid will be equal to one settlement share. The total number of settlement shares for such Settlement Participants will be added together and the Net Settlement Amount remaining after the per capita share allocations will be divided by the resulting sum to reach a per share dollar figure. That figure will then be multiplied by the number of settlement shares for each Settlement Participant to determine that individual's pro rata component. The "effective date" of the proposed agreement is one business day after the Court's final approval of the agreement reaches finality and is no longer appealable. The Plaintiffs' counsel will mail settlement checks to participating consultants within 15 calendar days of the effective date. The checks will remain valid and negotiable for 180 calendar days from their issuance dates. The proposed agreement provides that any funds remaining from uncashed checks at the end of 180 days will go to their chosen cy pres recipient, Hope Center, Inc., a Kentucky nonprofit that provides services for homeless and at-risk persons in Kentucky, including employment services. Finally, the proposed agreement provides for the release of certain claims by participating consultants effective upon final approval of the agreement. Judge Reeves concludes that conditional certification of the collective and preliminary certification of the Rule 23 Kentucky class is appropriate at this time. And while he agrees that most provisions of the proposed agreement are sufficient, the Judge declines to preliminarily approve the settlement until the identified deficiencies are remedied. Based on the foregoing, Judge Reeves granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Ware and Edwards' unopposed motion. The Judge conditionally certified the FLSA collective, and preliminarily certified the Rule 23 class. Ware is appointed as the Kentucky class representative; and Harold Lichten and Olena Savytska of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Sarah Schalman-Bergen and Alexandra Piazza of Berger Montague PC, and David Blanchard and Frances Hollander of Blanchard & Walker, PLLC, as the class counsel. The attorney's fees, costs, and service awards provided for in the proposed agreement, and the cy pres beneficiary are preliminarily approved. The Court declines to approve the notices to the putative collective and class members, and to preliminarily approve the proposed agreement in its entirety at this time. Should the Plaintiffs renew their motion to correct any deficiencies and proceed with the notice process, they are directed to propose an appropriate date for a hearing on final certification of the FLSA collective, final certification of the Kentucky class, and final approval of the proposed agreement. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/SrwTyW from Leagle.com. CLARK & GENTRY: Court Narrows Claims in Avrahami RICO Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Benyamin Avrahami, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Celia Clark, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-19-04631-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz.), Judge Steven P. Logan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona: (a) granted in part and denied in part (i) Clark Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike; (ii) the Hiller Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) the ACR Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (b) struck as untimely the McEntee Defendants' Joinder; and (c) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Take Jurisdictional Discovery. The case arises from the Plaintiffs and the Defendants creating and operating a "microcaptive insurance company." A microcaptive insurance company is created when the insurer and insured are related by ownership. Under Section 831 of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"), in a legal microcaptive insurance arrangement, the insurance premiums paid by the insured subsidiaries are tax deductible by both the insurer and the insured, resulting in significant tax savings. The Avrahami Plaintiffs own several jewelry stores and other properties in Arizona through their corporation American Findings. The Insured Plaintiffs are subsidiaries of American Findings. In 2007, the Avrahami Plaintiffs consulted with their accounting firm, the McEntee Defendants, about ways to reduce their businesses' tax burdens. The McEntee Defendants recommended the Hiller Defendants and the Clark Defendants to help the Avrahami Plaintiffs save significantly on their taxes. The Avrahami Plaintiffs ultimately retained the Hiller Defendants and the Clark Defendants to help form a microcaptive insurance company. In November 2007, the Avrahami Plaintiffs entered into a retainer agreement by which Celia Clark and Neil Hiller were to act as co-counsel to provide all legal services to form a microcaptive insurance company so that American Findings and the Insured Plaintiffs could receive several tax deductions. The parties created Feedback in 2007. In 2009, Celia Clark began to use the ACR Defendants' actuary services to assess the premiums that needed to be paid by the Insured Plaintiffs in order to adequately spread the risk of Feedback's operation - as required by IRC Section 831(b). The Insured Plaintiffs payed insurance premiums to Feedback from 2007-2015. As the overall manager of Feedback's operation, Celia Clark procured Defendant Heritor to manage Feedback during that time. Celia Clark also hired Defendant Pan America to issue premiums to Feedback in order to further "spread the risk" for the microcaptive insurance business. However, in May 2013, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") sent Feedback a statutory notice of deficiency determining that Feedback was not a valid insurance company and that the amounts characterized as insurance premiums were really income to Feedback. Celia Clark and Neil Hiller advised the Plaintiffs that Feedback was operating as a legal entity and that the Plaintiffs should challenge the notice of deficiency in federal tax court. The Plaintiffs did challenge the notice, and ultimately, the tax court determined that the Plaintiffs improperly took several tax deductions and owed over $1 million in back taxes, penalties, and interest. On July 3, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others, asserting 13 claims arising from the Defendants' creation and management of microcaptive insurance companies. The claims include violations of: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) (Count I); Conspiracy to Violate Federal RICO 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) (Count II); Arizona RICO A.R.S. Section 13-2312 (Count III); Conspiracy to Violate Arizona RICO (Count IV); Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count V); Negligence/Professional Malpractice (Count VI); Negligent Misrepresentation (Count VII); Disgorgement (Count VIII); Rescission (Count IX); Breach of Contract (or in the alternative) Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count X); Fraud (Count XI); Aiding and Abetting (Count XII); and Civil Conspiracy (Count XIII). The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants fraudulently created a scheme to develop, promote, sell, and implement faulty captive insurance products by giving improper legal, tax, and investment advice to individuals and businesses. They allege that the fraudulent scheme caused damages by exacerbating their tax burdens. The Defendants have filed a series of motions to dismiss, which are fully briefed and ready for review. The Clark and Hiller Defendants assert similar arguments regarding dismissal of Counts I-IV, VIII, IX, and XI-XIII. Judge Logan finds that: (1) A.R.S. Section 13-2314.04(O) is inapplicable and cannot bar the Plaintiffs' claims; (2) the Plaintiffs have adequately pled their allegations of fraud against the Clark and Hiller Defendants; (3) the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, rescission and disgorgement; (4) the Plaintiffs have asserted a claim for breach of contract that is plausible on its face; (5) because preparatory offenses are included under A.R.S. Section 13-2312, the Plaintiffs do not and cannot state a separate claim for any statutory conspiracy to violate Section 13-2312; (6) the Complaint does not adequately describe the relationship between each individual Defendant and the Plaintiffs and how that relationship formed a fiduciary duty; (7) the Plaintiffs' claim for professional malpractice is overly broad in violation of Rule 9(b), and Count VI will be dismissed without prejudice; and (8) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a claim for negligent misrepresentation and apprised each applicable Defendant of their part in making the allegedly false representations. The ACR Defendants argue that: (1) the Complaint fails to state any claim against them; (2) the statute of limitations has expired on all the claims asserted against them; and (3) the Plaintiffs failed to establish personal jurisdiction over them. Judge Logan finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations against the ACR Defendants do support a claim for RICO violations (Counts I-IV) and fraud (Count XI). However, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, professional malpractice, disgorgement, and breach of contract (Counts V, VI, VIII, and X). Importantly, the Plaintiffs fail to allege an underlying contractual relationship or other direct relationship with the ACR Defendants. Therefore, the Court dismisses Counts V, VI, VIII, and X as to the ACR Defendants without prejudice. The Judge further finds that because the Clark and Hiller Defendants (acting as the Plaintiffs' attorneys) made repeated assurances that that the ACR Defendant's services were legal, the fact-based inquiry to the discovery rule is applicable to the ACR Defendants. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' claims are not time barred under A.R.S. Section 12-548. Because he finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled a federal RICO claim against the ACR Defendants, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have established personal jurisdiction (and thereby supplemental jurisdiction) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1965(b). Therefore, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery. On Sept. 6, 2019, the McEntee Defendants filed a Joinder to the Clark and Hiller Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. In response, the Plaintiffs argue that the joinder is untimely and should be stricken. The Court finds that the McEntee Defendants' joinder is untimely. Therefore, the Court strikes the joinder. However, to the extent that the Plaintiffs' amended complaint changes the allegations made against the McEntee Defendants, they are free to request leave to amend their answer. Otherwise, the Court will grant the McEntee Defendants leave to file a Rule 12(c) motion once the Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs will have 30 days from the date of the Order to file an amended complaint. If no amended complaint is filed within 30 days, the Clerk of the Court shall, without further Court order, dismiss the case with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Amended Order is available at https://is.gd/uz6Dfh from Leagle.com. On further developments, the Plaintiffs have since filed a first amended complaint on the matter. CLIENT SERVICES: Riccio Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as JOANNE RICCIO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-07974-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., June 30, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Freda L. Wolfson. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regarding consumer credit. Client Services offers collection services. The Company provides accounts receivable management, debt collection services, and customer care solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com COLONY CAPITAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 27 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB) Class Period: February 27, 2020 - May 8, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 21, 2020 The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Hamilton had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, particularly with respect to one of its Mexican subsidiaries; (2) consequently, the Company's accounting included certain irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at this Mexican subsidiary, as well as potential misconduct with respect to the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary; (3) as a result of all the foregoing, Hamilton could not accurately attest to its financial results, particularly with respect to these metrics, and was consequently at an increased risk of delaying the filing of its period reports with the SEC; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Colony Capital, Inc. (NYSE: CLNY) Class Period: August 9, 2019 and May 7, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Colony's sale of its industrial real estate portfolio and the bifurcation of Colony Credit Real Estates portfolio were foreseeably likely to negatively impact Colony's financial and operating results; (2) that certain of Colony's remaining portfolio companies carried unsustainable levels of debt secured by hotels and healthcare-related properties and were thus at significant risk of default; and (3) that as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Carnival Corporation (NYSE: CCL) Class Period: September 26, 2019 and May 1, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's medics were reporting increasing events of COVID-19 illness on the Company's ships; (2) that Carnival was violating port of call regulations by concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19 infections on board its ships; (3) that in responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow the Company's own health and safety protocols developed in the wake of other communicable disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to operate, Carnival ships were responsible for continuing to spread COVID-19 at various ports throughout the world; and (5) that as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) Class Period: April 5, 2020 and May 5, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 3, 2020 Shareholders with $50,000 in losses or more are encouraged to contact the firm The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly allocate government-backed loans under the PPP, and/or had inadequate controls in place to prevent such misallocation; (2) that the foregoing foreseeably increased the Company's litigation risk with respect to PPP allocation, as well as increased regulatory scrutiny and/or potential enforcement actions; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Barbershop Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Losses -------------------------------------------------------------- LEGACY SPORTS BARBERSHOP LLC n/k/a LEGACY BRAND ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a LEGACY SPORTS BARBERSHOP, and LEGACY BARBER ACADEMY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04149 (N.D. Ill., July 14, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs for the failure of the Defendant to pay for their loss of business income occasioned directly by being unable to use their property due to COVID-19. To protect their businesses in the event that they suddenly had to suspend operations for reasons outside of their control, or if they had to act in order to prevent further property damage, the Plaintiffs obtained insurance coverage from the Defendant, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CNA Financial Corporation ("CAN"), including special property coverage, as set forth in Defendant's Businessowners Special Property Coverage Form (SB146801I), the endorsement for Business Income and Extra Expense (SB146802E) and the endorsement for Civil Authority (SB146826B). Plaintiffs were forced to suspend or reduce their business due to COVID-19 and the resultant closure orders issued by civil authorities in Virginia. According to the complaint, the Defendant refused to pay its insureds under its Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any 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. Indeed, Defendant has denied Plaintiffs' claim under the policy. Plaintiff Legacy Sports Barbershop LLC n/k/a Legacy Brand Enterprises LLC, owns and operates Legacy Sports Barbershop & Salon, which is a full service, sports-themed and family-oriented barbershop and salon, located in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Plaintiff Legacy Barber Academy prepares students to pass the Virginia State Board Licensing Examination and to enter the barbering profession skilled in client retention, professionalism, customer service, budgeting and team building. Continental Casualty Company is an insurance company with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Mark Hamill, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com mhamill@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com - and - Mark Lanier, Esq. Alex Brown, Esq. Skip McBride, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC 10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Jeff J. Bowen, Esq. Jesse J. Bair, Esq. Freya K. Bowen, Esq. BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 286-2302 E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com jbowen@bbblawllp.com jbair@bbblawllp.com fbowen@bbblawllp.com - and - Douglas Daniels, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK 6363 Woodway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 917-0024 E-mail: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com - and - C. Calvin Warriner III, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, PA 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 285-4670 E-mail: CCW@SearcyLaw.com CROSSLAND OILFIELD: Gonzales Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Welders -------------------------------------------------------------- RAUL GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROSSLAND OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC and DREW A. CROSSLAND, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00829 (W.D. Tex., July 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated welders and oilfield workers for all hours worked or overtime compensation at the required rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked over 40 hours each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Texas Common Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a welder in Texas and Mississippi oilfield locations from approximately October 2016 until November 2019. Crossland Oilfield Services, LLC is an oilfield pipeline service company that provides services for its clients in the oil and gas industry throughout Texas and Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com DALLAS, TX: Faces Dobbins Suit Alleging Violation of Civil Rights ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Dallas, et al. The case is captioned as Yolanda Dobbins, Lily Godinez, and Megan Nordyke, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The City of Dallas, and Dallas County, Case No. 3:20-cv-01727-K (N.D. Tex., June 30, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. Dallas, a modern metropolis in north Texas, is a commercial and cultural hub of the region.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Warren Henderson, Esq. Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq. ELLWANGER LAW LLLP 400 S. Zang Blvd., Suite 1015 Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: (737) 808-2260 E-mail: dhenderson@equalrights.law jellwanger@equalrights.law DEUTSCHE BANK: Karimi Sues Over Decline in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------ ALI KARIMI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, JOHN CRYAN, CHRISTIAN SEWING, and JAMES VON MOLTKE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-08978 (D. N.J., July 15, 2020) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Deutsche Bank securities between November 7, 2017, and July 6, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Bank and certain of its top officials. According to the complaint, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Bank's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Deutsche Bank had failed to remediate deficiencies related to anti-money laundering, its disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, and its U.S. operations' troubled condition; (ii) as a result, the Bank failed to properly monitor customers that the Bank itself deemed to be high risk, including, among others, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and two correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, which were both the subjects of prior scandals involving financial misconduct; (iii) the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Bank's financial results and reputation; and (iv) as a result, the Bank's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Then, on July 7, 2020, the Federal Reserve's criticism of Deutsche Bank's failure to address its AML and other issues was reaffirmed when the New York State Department of Financial Services fined the Bank $150 million for neglecting to flag numerous questionable transactions from accounts associated with Epstein and with two correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, both of which were the subjects of prior scandals involving financial misconduct. On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares fell $0.13 per share, or 1.31%, to close at $9.82 per share on July 7, 2020. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Bank's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Plaintiff acquired Deutsche Bank securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft is a Frankfurt am Main, Germany-headquartered company that provides investment, financial, and related products and services to private individuals, corporate entities, and institutional clients worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com DISNEY WORLD: Annual Passholders File Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Gabrielle Russon, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that two Disney annual passholders have filed a lawsuit seeking class action status after Disney mistakenly charged them before the parks officially reopened from the coronavirus pandemic shutdown. Disney's error happened on July 3, prompting a blaze of complaints on social media from passholders who were normally billed monthly but now had unexpectedly had lump-sum bills pending in their bank accounts. In April, Disney had promised not to bill passholders on the monthly payment plan until the parks were back open. Sarah Heinman and Liza Bertran, both from Miami-Dade County, said they are among those passholders and filed an Orange Circuit Court lawsuit that day, seeking more than $30,000. They accused Disney of breach of contract. Disney charged Heinman $905 and Bertran $520, the equivalent of four months of payments "in one fell swoop," the lawsuit said. At the time, Disney acknowledged it was a glitch and apologized. The charges will be reversed, the company said, although it will depend on each passholder's bank how long it would take. Disney did not provide a comment on July 8. Francesco Zincone and Armas Bertran Pieri, two Miami-based attorneys handling the suit, also did not respond. Disney World's theme parks shut down March 16 from the coronavirus pandemic. The Magic Kingdom and the Animal Kingdom are reopening up again, first to employees, then to passholders on Thursday and Friday, then finally to the general public on Saturday, although people are required to have advance reservations, a move meant to limit crowds. Elsewhere in Orlando, SeaWorld and Universal Orlando are both back in business and, like Disney, are requiring visitors and employees to wear masks as well as other safety precautions. In California, a San Diego resident sued SeaWorld for charging her annual pass while the parks were closed from the pandemic. That lawsuit also is seeking class-action status. [GN] DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Howard Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as CAROL HOWARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01085-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 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. 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 ELLIOT SECURITY: Bid to Conditionally Certify FLSA Classes Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as DAPHNE FLEMING AND BRINTNEY JONES v. ELLIOT SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC, IAN KENNARD, AND DARRIN ELLIOT, SR., Case No. 2:19-cv-02348-GGG-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Greg Gerard Guidry entered an order on July 16, 2020, denying the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify Fair Labor Standards Act collective action classes and to facilitate notice under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): Deductions/Kickback Class: "all persons employed by Defendants as security guards since May 2017 who had deductions made from their pay to purchase from the Defendants certain items such as uniforms, equipment and other miscellaneous expenses for the primary benefit of the Defendants, which resulted in them earning less than the federal minimum wage and/or less than the mandatory one and one-half times their regular rate of pay during weeks when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in direct violation of the antikickback provisions of the FLSA"; Overtime Class: "all persons employed by the Defendants as security guards since May 2017 who were paid at a straight time or flat rate of pay for hours that they worked in excess of 40 per week, in direct violation of the FLSA"; and Late Payment Class: "all persons who worked for Defendants as security guards since May 2017 and who received one or more paychecks late due to the Defendants' failure to pay them timely, but did not receive liquidated damages due to the Defendants' late payment, in direct violation of the FLSA. The Court finds that conditional certification is not appropriate in this case because the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the threshold requirement of showing that similarly-situated individuals exist. At the notice stage, the plaintiffs bear the burden to demonstrate that "(1) there is a reasonable basis for crediting the assertion that aggrieved individuals exist; (2) those aggrieved individuals are similarly situated to the plaintiff in relevant respects given the claims and defenses asserted; and (3) those individuals want to opt in to the lawsuit." The Plaintiffs assert a FLSA collective action claim on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated "security guard" employees of the Defendants seeking damages for unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and liquidated damages. Between 2017 and 2019, the Plaintiffs worked as security guards for Defendants. The Defendants provide security guard services to the Greater New Orleans area. The Defendants employ security guards and pay them hourly.[CC] ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Suit Hits Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------ Gregory A. Hurst, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Enphase Energy, Inc., Badrinarayanan Kothandaraman and Eric Branderiz, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04036 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2020), seeks compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses in this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees and other costs and disbursements and such other relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Enphase is a global energy technology company that manages solar generation, storage and communication on one platform. Enphase's premier product is a fully integrated solar-plus-storage using microinverter technology. Enphase Energy allegedly failed to disclose that its U.S. and international revenues were inflated, that it engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices and that its reported base points expansion in gross margins were overstated. On this news, the stock plummeted from its June 16, 2020 closing price of $52.76 per share to a June 17, 2020 closing price of $39.04 per share, a one day drop of $13.72 or approximately 26%. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jake Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: 617-398-5600 Fax: 617-507-6020 Email: Jake@blockesq.com - and - Whitney Erin Street, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 520 Third Street, Suite 108 Oakland, CA 94109 Tel: (415) 968-8999 Email: whitney@blockesq.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Grauman Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT GRAUMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; TRANS UNION, LLC; and VANTAGESCORE SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03152 (E.D.N.Y., July 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant failed to adopt reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of consumer credit reports. The Defendants' negligent and willful acts include: (1) inaccurately reported the status of the Plaintiff's and other Class members' Wells Fargo home mortgages; (2) continued to include inaccurate information in their reports, including, but not limited to, in the credit score itself, rather than correcting the inaccurate reports; and (3) failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that the mortgage information provided was accurate. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful practices, the consumer credit scores of the Plaintiff and Class members had dropped and their access to credit is jeopardized during a time of increasing financial insecurity due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Equifax Information Services, LLC is a consumer credit reporting agency, with its principal place of business in Atlanta Georgia. Trans Union, LLC is a consumer credit reporting agency, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. VantageScore Solutions LLC is a consumer credit reporting agency, with its headquarters in Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: bscott@bursor.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT MANSOUR SUCIU & TOMINA PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd. Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyer.com ERIE INSURANCE: Salons, Resto Slam Denied Insurance Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------ High Tech Hair LLC, Capucinno Pizzeria Ristorante and Rose Glam Hair Studio, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02895 (E.D. Pa., June 17, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief for breach of contract. High Tech Hair owns and operates High Tech Hair Salon, a hair salon and spa, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. La Villa owns and operates La Villa Pizza & Family Restaurant, a family style Italian restaurant, located in Morrisville, Pennsylvania. Rose Glam owns and operates Rose Glam Hair Studio, a salon located in Colonial Heights, Virginia. To protect their businesses in the event that it suddenly had to suspend operations for reasons outside of their control, or if they had to act in order to prevent further property damage, Plaintiffs purchased insurance coverage from Erie, including commercial property coverage, as set forth in Erie's Ultrapack Plus Commercial Property Coverage Form that provides "Income Protection" coverage, which promises to pay for loss of income sustained due to partial or total interruption of business resulting directly from loss or damage to property on the insured premises. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, Erie Insurance denied coverage despite that the policy does not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or virus-related losses, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq. Jeffrey P. Goodman, Esq. Samuel B. Dordick, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY P.C. One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Email: rmongeluzzi@smbb.com jgoodman@smbb.com sdordick@smbb.com - and - Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BENDESKY, PC 120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218 Horsham, PA 19044 Tel: (215) 496-8282 Email: phoward@smbb.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Mark Hamill, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com mhamill@dicellolevitt.com - and - Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 7556 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 Tel: (440) 953-8888 Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com - and - Mark Lanier, Esq. Alex Brown, Esq. Skip McBride, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC 10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Jeff J. Bowen, Esq. Jesse J. Bair, Esq. Freya K. Bowen, Esq. BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 286-2302 Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com jbowen@bbblawllp.com jbair@bbblawllp.com fbowen@bbblawllp.com - and - Douglas Daniels, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK 6363 Woodway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 917-0024 Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com ERNIE'S AUTO: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Ortega et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ JORGE ALMONTE ORTEGA; JOEL URENA; MANUEL DIAZ-MINAYA; ODALIS BERROA HERNANDEZ; and VICTOR MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ERNIE'S AUTO DETAILING INC.; ERNESTO DECENA; and BAY RIDGE AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03007 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 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 Ortega, Urena, Diaz-Minaya, were employed by the Defendants as driver. The Plaintiffs Hernandez, and Moreno were employed as detailers. Ernie's Auto Detailing Inc. manufactures and distributes automotive detailing and cleaning products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Stein, Esq. AMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com ESSENTIA HEALTH: Faces Kraft Product Liability Suit in D.N.D. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Essentia Health, et al. The case is styled as Jessica Kraft, individually and as parent to minors L.K., S.K., and O.K.; Shelli Schneider, individually and as parent of minors A.S and W.S.; and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Essentia Health, John Doe Manufacturers, John Doe Distributor, Case No. 3:20-cv-00121-PDW-ARS (D.N.D., July 10, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Essentia Health is an integrated healthcare system with facilities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: McLain J. Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER, SCHNEIDER & SCHNEIDER 815 3rd Ave. S. Fargo, ND 58103 Phone: (701) 235-4481 Email: mac@schneiderlawfirm.com ESSEX COUNTY, NJ: $5.7MM Deal in Strip Search Class Action Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge in Newark has approved a $5.7 million settlement in a class action against Essex County over illegal strip searches at its correctional facility for people arrested on non-indictable offenses. The Essex County counsel said the actual payout will likely come in at around $1.3 million. [GN] FIFTH THIRD: Hartt Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Bank Accounts ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL HARTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIFTH THIRD BANCORP, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00547-SJD (S.D. Ohio, July 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in an ongoing pattern of deception and fraud including (1) opening bank accounts in customers' names without customer approval; (2) applying for credit cards in customers' names without their knowledge; (3) enrolling customers in payday loan and online banking services that they did not request; (4) charging customers fees on accounts that the customer had never applied for or approved; and (5) transferring funds from customers' authorized existing accounts to new, fraudulently opened accounts. These illegal practices are a direct result of the Defendant's cross-selling sales strategy which aims to grow the bank's revenue by requiring employees to sell increasing numbers of products to customers. The toxic high-pressure sales environment triggered the bank's employees to engage in unethical sales practices. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered actual damages and ascertainable loss including but not limited to fees and charges imposed on unauthorized accounts, negative credit reports, and unauthorized access of personal financial information. Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyson Beridon, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 425 Walnut St., Suite 2315 Cincinnati, OH 45212 Telephone: (513) 381-2224 E-mail: alysonb@bsjfirm.com - and – J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com - and – Elaine S. Kusel, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (908) 285-6802 E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com - and – Richard D. McCune, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com - and – Eric B. Abramson, Esq. Philip J. Goodman, Esq. SERLING & ABRAMSON, P.C. 280 N. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 406 Birmingham, MI 48009 Telephone: (248) 647-6966 E-mail: eabramson@serlinglaw.com pjgoodman1@aol.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Head Suit Over Defective Sunroof Design ------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE HEAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-11915-DPH-DRG (E.D. Mich., July 15, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff for herself and on behalf of all persons wherever located in the United States, or at minimum in the state of Illinois, who purchased or leased new or pre-owed model year 2010-2013 Cadillac SRX vehicles with defective sunroof design, materials, and/or workmanship which were manufactured, distributed, warranted, and/or sold by Defendant. Defendant has had actual knowledge the sunroofs leak causing water to intrude into the passenger compartment of the vehicles because of a defect in the design and/or manufacture of the sunroofs and their component parts since shortly after commencing manufacture of 2010-2013 model year Cadillac SRX vehicles. The water intrusion causes water damage to electronic components of the Class Vehicles and creates safety concerns by damaging wiring and electrical modules, including but not limited to the sensing and diagnostic module (SDM) and the SDM harness connector (which control the safe operation and deployment of the vehicle's air bag system) resulting in Class Vehicles and their important electronic component parts not operating properly and creating a known safety hazard that can result in personal injuries. According to the complaint, despite this knowledge, Defendant actively concealed, refused and/or failed to disclose the existence of this defect to Plaintiff, members of the class, and the public who were considering purchasing or did purchase a new or pre-owned Class Vehicle which was still covered by the original GM manufacturer's warranty period. As a result of Defendant's alleged misconduct, Plaintiff and the class members were harmed and suffered actual harm and damages in that they purchased Class Vehicles which they would not otherwise have purchased had they known the material fact the vehicle they were considering and did purchase were within the class of vehicles that suffered from the Leaking Sunroof Defect, or they paid more for Class Vehicles than they were worth given the existence of the Leaking Sunroof Defect, and/or they parted with their own money for inspection, diagnoses and/or repairs caused by the Leaking Sunroof Defect. General Motors LLC engages in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, leasing, and/or servicing Cadillac automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, and other Cadillac motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Waller, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT A. WALLER, JR. P.O. Box 999 Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007 Telephone: (760) 753-3118 Facsimile: (760) 753-3206 E-mail: robert@robertwallerlaw.com GEO GROUP: Kehoe Law Investigates Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------- Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of investors of The GEO Group, Inc. ("GEO Group" or the "Company") (NYSE: GEO) to determine whether GEO Group may have violated federal securities laws. Investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, securities of GEO Group between February 27, 2020 and June 16, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and suffered losses greater than $50,000 are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm's Securities Class Action Questionnaire or contact Kevin Cauley, Director, Business Development, (215) 792-6676, Ext. 802, securities@kehoelawfirm.com, info@kehoelawfirm.com, to discuss the investigation or potential legal claims. According to a class action lawsuit filed on July 7, 2020 in United States District Court on behalf of GEO Group investors, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Defendants, allegedly, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (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; (iii) accordingly, the Company was vulnerable to significant financial and/or reputational harm; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases that have recovered more than $10 billion dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. [GN] GEO GROUP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO) between February 27, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for GEO investors under the federal securities laws. To join the GEO class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1894.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) GEO maintained ineffective COVID-19 response procedures; (2) those inadequate procedures subjected residents of the Company's halfway houses to significant health risks; (3) accordingly, the Company was vulnerable to significant financial and/or reputational harm; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 8, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1894.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN] GEO GROUP: 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 The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO) 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 February 27, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are encouraged to contact the firm before September 8, 2020. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. GEO's COVID-19 response procedures were ineffective. The Company's failure to maintain appropriate response procedures placed the residents of its halfway houses at risk. Placing its residents at significant health risk in turn made the Company vulnerable to financial and reputational harm. Based on this news, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about GEO, 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., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN] GINO'S OF BAYSIDE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Torres Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Porfirio Torres, Mauricio Torres, Herman Zavala, and Oscar Salazar, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. GINO'S OF BAYSIDE, LLC d/b/a TRATTORIA 35, and MICHAEL MOLINARI, Case No. 1:20-cv-03083 (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2020), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensations, unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day their work shift exceeded 10 hours, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiffs with a written wage notice/"tip credit" notification. The Plaintiffs worked over 40 hours per week but work performed above 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law. The Plaintiffs were not paid for an extra hours of work at the statutory minimum wage for each day that the number of hours between the beginning and end of their work shift exceeded 10 hours. The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt busboy, food preparer/kitchen helper, pizza maker and dishwasher at the Defendants' Restaurant. GINO'S OF BAYSIDE owns and operates an Italian restaurant, doing business as Trattoria 35, located in Bayside, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jcpclaw.com GOLI NUTRITION: Young Asserts Breach of ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------- Goli Nutrition Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Goli Nutrition Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05423 (S.D. N.Y., July 14, 2020). Goli Nutrition Inc. is an inventive, people-focused nutrition company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com GOOGLE LLC: Rodriguez et al. Allege Invasion of Consumer Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ and JULIEANNA MUNIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04688 (N.D. Cal., July 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for invasion of privacy and violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated consumers, allege that the Defendants are engaged in unlawful practices of collecting, intercepting, tracking, and selling consumer mobile browsing history and activity data regardless of consumers' action to protect their privacy by turning off Web & App Activity tracking on their Privacy Settings and selecting private mode on their browsers. The Defendants' practices infringe upon consumers' privacy, intentionally deceive consumers, and give Google and its employees power to learn intimate details about individuals' lives, interests, and app usage. Google's tracking of app activity occurs not only in its own apps, which utilize Firebase and AdMob, but also on third-party apps that have no formal association or affiliation with Google other than simply utilizing a software development kit called Firebase. The Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered loss by reason of these violations, including, but not limited to, violation of their rights to privacy and loss of value in their personally identifiable information. Google LLC is a technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, with a principal place of business located at The Googleplex, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California. Alphabet Inc. is a holding company and parent company of Google LLC, with a principal place of business located at The Googleplex, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark C. Mao, Esq. Beko Reblitz-Richardson, Esq. Alexander J. Konik, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 44 Montgomery St., 41st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 293-6800 Facsimile: (415) 293-6899 E-mail: mmao@bsfllp.com brichardson@bsfllp.com akonik@bsfllp.com - and – James Lee, Esq. Rossana Baeza, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 100 SE 2nd St., 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 Facsimile: (303) 539-1307 E-mail: jlee@bsfllp.com rbaeza@bsfllp.com - and – Jesse Panuccio, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Ave, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: jpanuccio@bsfllp.com GOOGLE: Unlawfully Collects, Stores Facial Biometrics, Vance Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, STEVEN VANCE and TIM JANECYK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-04696 (N.D. Cal., July 14, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Google is engaged in unlawful practices of collecting, obtaining, storing, using, possessing and profiting from the biometric identifiers and information of the Plaintiffs, particularly their facial geometric scans. Google obtained access to the biometric identifiers and information of the Plaintiffs and Class members through the Diversity in Face Dataset developed by IBM. Google profited from the biometric identifiers and information contained in the Diversity in Faces Dataset because those information allowed Google to improve its facial recognition products and technologies. Google's practices exposed the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated residents in Illinois to ongoing privacy risks. Google LLC is a technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, with a principal place of business located at The Googleplex, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Megan Pierce, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Scott R. Drury, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 Facsimile: (312) 243-5902 E-mail: megan@loevy.com mike@loevy.com drury@loevy.com - and – Gary Lynch, Esq. Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312)750-1265 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com nlange@carlsonlynch.com GORDON BRUSH: Blind Can't Access Website, Tenzer-Fuchs Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE TENZER-FUCHS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GORDON BRUSH MFG. CO., INC., d/b/a THE FOOTMATE SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03151-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., July 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant's website, www.footmate.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff. The 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. The common access barriers on the website include, but not limited to: (1) title frames with text are not provided for identification and navigation; (2) videos that do not maintain audio descriptions; (3) web pages do not have titles that describe the topic or purpose; (4) the default human language of each web page cannot be programmatically determined; and (5) inaccessible Portable Document Format (PDFs). These access barriers effectively denied the Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy the Defendant's web services the same way sighted individuals do. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to initiate a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Gordon Brush Mfg. Co., Inc., d/b/a The Footmate System, is a health product retailer specializing in foot care products in California. [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 HAND HOSPITALITY: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Vazquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HAND HOSPITALITY LLC (D/B/A HAND HOSPITALITY), HER NAME IS HAN LLC (D/B/A HER NAME IS HAN), ON (D/B/A ON), MADANGSUI INC. (D/B/A MADANGSUI), KI HYUN LEE, JINYOUNG Y CHOI, and CHO DANG GOL LLC (D/B/A CHO DANG GOL), Case No. 1:20-cv-05328 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The lawsuit is also brought for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked, according to the complaint. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, at either the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the 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. The Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher worker, a food preparer, and a cook at the Defendants' restaurants. The Defendants own, operate, or control a chain of Korean restaurants located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 HANLEES AUTO: Cal. App. Upholds Arbitration Ruling in Jarboe Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THOMAS JARBOE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HANLEES AUTO GROUP et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. A156411 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the First District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to compel Jarboe to arbitrate claims and declining to stay the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") claim. Plaintiff Jarboe was hired by DKD of Davis, Inc., doing business as Hanlees Davis Toyota. Shortly after he began working, Jarboe was transferred to Leehan of Davis, Inc., doing business as Hanlees Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Kia. Following his termination at Leehan of Davis, Jarboe brought the wage and hour action against the Hanlees Auto Group, its 12 affiliated dealerships, including DKD of Davis and Leehan of Davis, and three individual defendants, Dong K. Lee, Kyong S. Han, and Dong I. Lee. The Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement between Jarboe and DKD of Davis. The trial court granted the motion as to 11 of the 12 causes of action against DKD of Davis, but denied the motion as to the other Defendants. The trial court also allowed Jarboe's claim under the PAGA, Labor Code section 2698 et seq. to proceed in court against all the Defendants. The trial court refused to stay the causes of action allowed to proceed in litigation pending arbitration of Jarboe's claims against DKD of Davis. Hanlees, its affiliated dealerships, and the individual Defendants contend that the trial court erred by concluding the arbitration provision in the Employment Agreement was limited to its signatories. They argue that Hanlees, its affiliated dealerships, and the individual owners were entitled to compel arbitration either under the terms of the agreement, as third party beneficiaries or under the theory of equitable estoppel. On review, the Appellate Court finds that even if the individual Defendants have standing to compel arbitration as "owners" of the company, it is in the limited context of their ownership of DKD of Davis, the "Company" named in the Employment Agreement. Jarboe's claims against DKD of Davis were ordered to arbitration. Also, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Defendants' construction of the Aug. 4, 2017 Application is correct, the Application was superseded by the Aug. 10, 2017 Employment Agreement. There is no basis to conclude that Jarboe intended the arbitration provision in the Employment Agreement would apply to all the Defendants. The Appellate Court also finds that Jarboe is not seeking to obtain benefits under his employment agreement with DKD of Davis against Hanlees and the other dealerships under the Employment Agreement, as there are none, and he is arbitrating the claims against his employing company. Simply put, the inequities that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is designed to address are not present. The Defendants argue that the trial court erred in refusing to stay both Jarboe's PAGA claim and his remaining wage and hour claims against the nonsignatory defendants, while his individual claims against DKD of Davis are being arbitrated. The Appellate Court holds that because a PAGA claim is representative and does not belong to an employee individually, an employer should not be able dictate how and where the representative action proceeds. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to stay the PAGA action pending the arbitration of Jarboe's individual claims. The Defendants contend that they requested a stay of all non-arbitrable claims not just the PAGA claims. But the trial court's order does not address the wage and hour claims. The Appellate Court cannot review the propriety of a non-existent ruling. The proper vehicle for raising the claim of error was a motion for reconsideration. As the Defendants' time to seek reconsideration has long since passed, the Appellate Court deems the issue forfeited on appeal. Finally, Jarboe argues the trial court should have ruled that the Arbitration Agreements were unenforceable in their entirety due to both procedural and substantive unconscionability. Jarboe, however, has not appealed from the trial court's order compelling arbitration of his individual claims against DKD of Davis. Nor could he, because an order compelling arbitration is not appealable. Moreover, the general rule is that a respondent who has not appealed from a judgment may not assert error on appeal. Accordingly, the Appellate Court does not address Jarboe's claim that the Arbitration Agreements were unenforceable due to unconscionability. Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to compel Jarboe to arbitrate claims and declining to stay the PAGA claim. Jarboe will recover his costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's May 8, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/trz0ys from Leagle.com. HANOVER INSURANCE: Tsakos Inc Files Insurance Case in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. The case is styled as Tsakos, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated trading as Hanover Manor, Plaintiff v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. and Citizens Insurance Company of America, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-08889-ES-CLW (D.N.J., July 14, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed pursuant over Breach of Insurance Contract. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., based in Worcester, Massachusetts, is one of the oldest continuous businesses in the United States still operating within its original industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com HILLCREST DAVIDSON: Shams Balks at Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, Imran Shams, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. Hillcrest Davidson and Associates, Boss Exotics, LLC, and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01871-N (N.D. Tex., July 15, 2020) arises from the alleged Consumer Debt obligation of the Plaintiff to purchase a specific vehicle from Boss Exotics, a car dealer, which uses the Internet to reach customers all over the country. On or about May of 2020, Plaintiff paid a deposit of $2,000 to hold the car, as the purchase was contingent upon the vehicle passing inspection, and not having any "major mechanical issues". As the Plaintiff resided out of state, Boss itself suggested an independent car inspection service located in Dallas, Texas. Due to "major mechanical issues" with the car the Plaintiff requested the return of his $2,000 deposit and Boss denied it. Boss then threatened to credit report a past due collection account through Hillcrest on Plaintiff's credit reports for an alleged $20,000 balance. On or about late May of 2020, Hillcrest started making phone calls to Plaintiff. On a phone call between Hillcrest and Plaintiff, the Plaintiff told Hillcrest that he does not owe Boss any money and instead Plaintiff should have been refunded his $2,000. To this day the Defendants have attempted to collect a debt that was not authorized and have threatened to credit report a past due collection account in the amount of $20,000.00 on Plaintiff's credit reports. Plaintiff has suffered mental anguish, frustration, injury to his credit rating and ability to obtain credit at reasonable terms and an informational injury from Defendant Hillcrest and Defendant Boss debt collection actions. Hillcrest Davidson and Associates is a debt collector that regularly collects or attempts to collect debts due to third-parties, directly or indirectly from consumers in the state of Texas. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance company that conducts business in Texas. Boss Exotics, LLC is a car dealer based in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn Jaffer, Esq. Shayan Elahi, Esq. SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC 13601 Preston Rd E770 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (214) 494-1668 Facsimile: (469) 669-0786 E-mail: shawn@jaffer.law shayan@jaffer.law HITACHI LTD: 1st & 2nd Round Deals in ODD Antitrust Suit Upheld --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (i) affirmed the district court's approval of the first- and second-round settlements; and (ii) vacated the awards of fees and litigation expenses in the Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation. The cases are IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONNER ERWIN, Objector-Appellant, v. PANASONIC CORPORATION; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; NEC CORPORATION; SONY CORPORATION; SONY OPTIARC, INC.; SONY OPTIARC AMERICA, INC.; SONY NEC OPTIARC, INC.; HITACHI LTD.; HITACHI-LG DATA STORAGE, INC.; HITACHI-LG DATA STORAGE KOREA, INC., Defendants-Appellees. IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS, Objector-Appellant, v. PANASONIC CORPORATION; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; NEC CORPORATION; SONY CORPORATION; SONY OPTIARC, INC.; SONY OPTIARC AMERICA, INC.; SONY NEC OPTIARC, INC.; HITACHI LTD.; HITACHI-LG DATA STORAGE, INC.; HITACHI-LG DATA STORAGE KOREA, INC., Defendants-Appellees. IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BARBARA COCHRAN, Objector-Appellant, v. PANASONIC CORPORATION; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; NEC CORPORATION; SONY CORPORATION; SONY OPTIARC, INC.; SONY OPTIARC AMERICA, INC.; SONY NEC OPTIARC, INC.; HITACHI LTD.; HITACHI-LG DATA STORAGE, INC.; HITACHI-LG DATA STORAGE KOREA, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 17-15065, 17-17439, 17-15067, 17-17436, 17-15143 (9th Cir.), In 2009, the Department of Justice disclosed that it was conducting a criminal investigation into possible antitrust violations based on price-fixing within the optical disk drive ("ODD") industry. As a result of the federal criminal investigation, Hitachi-LG Data Storage and several of its senior officials pleaded guilty to criminal antitrust violations. The DOJ investigation resulted in significant fines and at least four prison terms. Several putative class claims were filed alleging civil antitrust violations arising from the same activity that was the focus of the DOJ investigation, and in April 2010, the panel on multidistrict litigation consolidated the claims. The consolidated case was assigned to Judge Vaughn Walker in the Northern District of California. Two groups of plaintiffs sought class certification—direct purchaser plaintiffs ("DPPs") and indirect purchaser plaintiffs ("IPPs"). The former prospective class comprised individuals and entities who purchased ODDs directly, such as personal computer manufacturers; the latter included plaintiffs who purchased products containing ODDs. The IPPs alleged that eleven groups of associated corporate defendants had conspired to restrain competition for ODDs. The Objectors in the matter now are members of the IPP class. As firms jockeyed to represent the putative class of IPPs in the consolidated action, the district court ordered prospective class counsel to provide information on any subject pertinent to the appointment and to propose terms for attorney fees and costs in representing a prospective class. The court reasoned that it was appropriate to consider the matter of fees and costs at the outset. Three groups of attorneys, including Hagens Berman, applied for appointment as interim class counsel and the district court granted their motions to seal their respective bids. The court explained that because their applications contain attorney work product, all three groups requested that the precise terms of their applications remain confidential during the pendency of thE litigation. Hagens Berman proposed a sliding-scale award for both fees and costs based on the percentage-of-recovery method, specifically citing the district court's earlier decisions endorsing this approach. The firm's sealed bid included a grid with a sliding-scale fee calculated as a percentage of the class recovery. One axis of the grid comprised four stages of litigation. The grid called for lower fees for earlier-stage recovery scenarios, and higher fees if the case proceeded to trial and/or appeal. The grid's other axis depicted the size of the class recovery and showed a lower fee percentage as the overall class recovery increased. The grid's maximum fee award was 14% of the class recovery from each Defendant. In June 2010, the district court appointed Hagens Berman interim class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3). The appointment order explained that the competing the firm's applications focused primarily on their respective fee and cost proposals and an analysis of the prospects for a recovery. Without revealing the actual fee percentages in Hagens Berman's grid, the court's appointment order concluded that the fee proposals favored Hagens Berman, and explained that the firm proposed declining fees for larger recoveries, and its proposal entailed one fee that covers both compensation of attorneys fees and reimbursement of attorneys' out-of-pocket expenses. The court's order specifically observed that Hagens Berman had proposed folding expense recovery into the fee. The IPPs' putative class action was reassigned to Judge Seeborg in October 2010, and the parties began extensive discovery and litigation practice. Four years later, the district court denied the motions for class certification filed by the IPP and DPP putative classes. After the Court denied interlocutory review, DPPs obtained certification of a settlement class and entered into settlement agreements resolving their claims. Hagens Berman continued litigating on behalf of the putative IPP class, and eventually prevailed on its renewed motion for class certification in February 2016. The Court denied the Defendants' request for interlocutory review in June 2016. During the period immediately before and after class certification, the IPP class reached tentative settlement agreements with four groups of affiliated corporate entities (Hitachi, NEC, Panasonic, and Sony) that yielded a common fund totaling $124.5 million. In its first motion for fees, Hagens Berman requested 25% of the total first-round recovery as attorneys' fees, or $31.125 million, and separately requested $3,704,323.97 for litigation expenses. The motion for fees and litigation expenses was filed six years after the district court's appointment order. The class members objected that the requested fee was excessive because the common fund constituted a "megafund," and objector Conner Erwin asked the district court to unseal the class counsel's fee bid so the class could learn what fee arrangement the firm proposed when it sought appointment. The district court held a fairness hearing in December 2016 to consider the first-round settlements. With minor modifications, the court adopted class counsel's proposed order granting final approval of the $124.5 million settlement, as well as the requested fees and separate litigation expenses. One objector appealed the approval of the first settlement: Christopher Andrews. Three objectors appealed the order awarding fees and expenses for the first settlement: Erwin, Andrews, and Barbara Cochran. While the appeal of the first-round settlements was pending, the underlying ODD litigation continued, and in 2017, the class entered into a second round of tentative settlement agreements with three additional groups of affiliated Defendants (PLDS, Pioneer, and Teac). The second-round settlements resulted in an additional $55.5 million common fund. The class counsel moved for a fee award of twenty-one percent of the common fund, or $11.655 million. Several objections were filed. A second fairness hearing was held in September 2017, and the district court largely adopted class counsel's proposed order approving its second motion for fees and expenses. The district court again denied Erwin's request to unseal class counsel's fee bid, along with all other objections. The court relied on class counsel's lodestar cross-check, which used the cumulative lodestar (all time invested) measured against the total recovery ($180 million), but the court acknowledged that if the second settlement were viewed in isolation, the multiplier would be in line with Erwin's calculation. Erwin timely appealed the district court's order awarding fees and expenses for the second-round settlements. Andrews objected to the second-round settlement agreements, but did not assert specific objections to Hagens Berman's motion for fees and expenses arising from those settlements. Cochran did not object to the second-round fee award. The class counsel filed a third motion for fees in 2018 after the IPP class reached settlement agreements with two additional Defendant groups (Samsung and Toshiba). At the third fairness hearing, the district court stated that it had been unable to find Hagens Berman's bid in the court files and directed the firm to submit a copy of the bid for in camera review. The order approving Hagens Berman's third fee request was issued two weeks later, and it acknowledged that the previous awards had been substantially higher than the terms of the firm's proposal. The third order observed that Hagens Berman's original bid offered to accept representation on the terms that no separate expense award would be made on top of any percentage-based fee award, and denied the class counsel's request for expenses. The order approved the requested 21%, an additional $5 million. Six months later, Hagens Berman filed on the public docket the single page of its bid showing the fee grid, but other portions of its fee application remain under seal. The objectors who appealed the firm's fee and expense awards arising from the first- and second-round settlements did not have access to the sliding-scale fee grid when they briefed the issues on appeal, but they did have the grid by the time oral argument was held before our court. The Ninth Circuit now holds that when the class counsel secures appointment as the interim lead counsel by proposing a fee structure in a competitive bidding process, that bid becomes the starting point for determining a reasonable fee. The district court may adjust fees upward or downward depending on circumstances not contemplated at the time of the bid, but the court must provide an adequate explanation for any variance. The Ninth Circuit does not endeavor to create a comprehensive list of circumstances that may warrant departure from a fee bid, but he notes that a district court would likely not abuse its discretion by departing from a bid based on circumstances the bid did not contemplate. Conversely, departure from a bid based on circumstances that were known at the time the bid was filed may be an abuse of discretion given the court's fiduciary duty to members of the class. The class counsel argues that an upward departure from its bid was warranted in part because it did not anticipate the need to litigate a second class certification motion or interlocutory appeals. Without more, these factors are insufficient to justify a variance of the magnitude approved in the first- and second-round fee awards. The bid to become the interim class counsel clearly contemplated that Hagens Berman would move to certify the Plaintiff class and it is not unusual for the interim class counsel to have to take more than one run at class certification. Finally, the proposed fee structure in the case explicitly contemplated appellate litigation. The Ninth Circuit next turns to the district court's award of litigation-related expenses. The district court awarded $5,073,042.92 in litigation expenses for the first- and second-round settlements. The Ninth Circuit holds that though it agrees with the part of the court's interpretation of the bid, the record is unclear about whether the district court had the opportunity to take it into account when it reviewed the expense requests associated with the first two settlement rounds. The Objectors did not have the information necessary to squarely raise the issue before the district court, but the fiduciary duty the Court owes to the class requires that the case be remanded so the class may be assured the issue is considered. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district courts enjoy broad discretion to determine reasonable fee awards, but the size of the variance between the bid and the awards in the case requires more explanation. More detailed findings are particularly important because the bid remained under seal, putting objectors at a disadvantage in trying to assess the reasonableness of the fees. Separately, the Ninth Circuit rejects the class counsel's assertion that it did not offer to absorb litigation expenses. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's award of fees and litigation expenses arising from the first- and second-round settlements, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's May 15, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/usI8WC from Leagle.com. Robert Clore (argued) and Christopher A. Bandas, Bandas Law Firm P.C., Corpus Christi, Texas, for Objector-Appellant Connor Erwin. George W. Cochran , Law Office of George W. Cochran, Streetsboro, Ohio, for Objector-Appellant Barbara Cochran. Christopher Andrews (argued), Livonia, Michigan, pro se Objector-Appellant. Kevin Kamuf Green (argued) -- keving@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, San Diego, California; Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, Washington; Jeff D. Friedman and Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Berkeley, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee Indirect Purchaser Class. No appearance by Defendants-Appellees. HUDSON CITY SAVINGS: Lin Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to Third Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Jay J. Lin, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Jay Lin, et al. v. Hudson City Savings Bank, et al., Case No. 3-18-cv-15387, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court issued an Opinion granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case. The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in which they sought class action certification against the Defendants asserting causes of action for: violations of the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a) (Count One), violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (Count Two), violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) (Count Three) and unjust enrichment (Count Four). The Defendants argue this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; this Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction pursuant to the Colorado River abstention doctrine; Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata; and that notwithstanding these doctrines, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs argue this Court should deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss because neither Defendant submitted Corporate Disclosure Statements as required by Rule 7.1 and Defendants' reliance on Rule 12(b)(1) is wholly without merit in the absence of existing state court judgment[s] subject to relitigation in federal court. The appellate case is captioned as Jay Lin, et al. v. Hudson City Savings Bank, et al., Case No. 20-2390, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiffs-Appellants JAY J. LIN and IRENE H. LIN of Edison, New Jersey, appear pro se.[BN] Defendants-Appellees HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK, M&T BANK, and PARKER MCCAY PA are represented by: James P. Berg, Esq. Scott W. Parker, Esq. PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP 270 Davidson Avenue, 5th Floor Somerset, NJ 08873 Telephone: (908) 333-6219 E-mail: james.berg@piblaw.com scott.parker@piblaw.com - and - Fred W. Hoensch, Esq. PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP 1635 Market Street 7 Penn Center, 11th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 908-9888 E-mail: fred.hoensch@piblaw.com - and - Andrew C. Sayles, Esq. CONNELL FOLEY LLP 56 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 535-0500 E-mail: asayles@connellfoley.com INFUSION CAPITAL: Faces Benitez Class Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Infusion Capital LLC. The case is styled as Mariano Benitez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Infusion Capital LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01314-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal., July 10, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales. Infusion Capital, LLC, is an investment banking firm that specializes in microcap companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com J2 GLOBAL: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased J2 Global, Inc. ("J2" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: JCOM) securities between October 5, 2015 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). J2 investors have until September 8, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your J2 investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/j2-global-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On June 30, 2020 Hindenburg Research released a report claiming "J2's opaque acquisition approach has opened the door to egregious insider self-enrichment, which we approximate totals $117 million to $172 million based on publicly available information." Hindenburg Research alleges, "We uncovered that J2 acquired a newly formed entity based out of its own VP of Corporate Development's personal residence for an estimated $20 million. The entity had undefined 'intellectual property' and no employees or apparent assets. No conflict was disclosed." The research report also claimed that, "Despite J2's proxy describing all but one of its board members as 'independent,' we found decades of intertwined financial interests between board members and executives, calling that independence into question." On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.29, or over 9%, to close at $63.21 per share on June 30, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (2) that J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3) that several so-called independent members of the Company's board of directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased J2 securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 8, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Contact: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/[GN] J2 GLOBAL: Rosen Files First Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM) between October 5, 2015 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for J2 Global investors under the federal securities laws. To join the J2 Global class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1893.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3) several so-called independent members of the Company' board of directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 8, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1893.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/[GN] J2 GLOBAL: 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 J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM) 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 October 5, 2015 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are encouraged to contact the firm before September 8, 2020. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. J2 participated in undisclosed related-party transactions. The Company hid impairments and underperformance in acquisitions by using misleading accounting techniques. Members of the Company's board of directors and audit committee that were described as independent were not in fact disinterested. Based on this news, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about J2, 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. www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 E-mail: info@schallfirm.com [GN] JAMAICA LIVE: Teixeira Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Camila Teixeira, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. JAMAICA LIVE POULTRY CORP. and OMAR HUSSEIN a/k/a Omar Thabet, ALI AHMED HUSSEIN and ABDULLAH K. AWADH, Case No. 1:20-cv-03104 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours she worked each week over 40 hours. Further, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with the proper wage notices and statements under the NYLL. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing them the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Plaintiff was employed as a butcher and general laborer from April 2018 until December 14, 2019. The Defendants own, operate, and/or control an abattoir located in Queens, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colin Mulholland, Esq. 30-97 Steinway, Ste. 301-A Astoria, NY 11103 Phone: (347) 687-2019 JAMES SINGER: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------- King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on May 29, Judge Davila of the Northern District of California granted the defendants' motion to dismiss two putative class actions filed against James Singer -- the alleged perpetrator of the highly publicized "Varsity Blues" college admissions bribery scandal -- and several universities where students were allegedly admitted after paying bribes. In Bendis v. Singer and Tamboura v. Singer, 30 plaintiffs sued Singer, several entities he allegedly controlled, and eight universities: the University of Southern California, Stanford University, the University of California-Berkeley, the University of San Diego, the University of Texas at Austin, Wake Forest University, Yale University, and Georgetown University. [Disclosure: King & Spalding represented Yale University in this litigation.] The plaintiffs were (i) prospective students who were denied admission to the universities, and (ii) parents who allegedly paid their application fees. They asserted various claims for violations of state consumer protection laws and negligence. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that they would not have paid an application fee to apply to the universities had they known the admissions process was tainted by bribery. They sought to represent a putative nationwide class of all individuals who paid application fees (but were denied admission) to the defendant universities between 2012 and 2018. Two of the university defendants (the University of San Diego and the University of Texas at Austin) were voluntarily dismissed at an early stage of the case. The remaining defendants moved to dismiss, contending among other things that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and otherwise failed to plead viable claims. Plaintiffs responded that they suffered both economic harms (i.e., paid application fees) and ideological harms (i.e., the lack of a fair and objective application process). Judge Davila granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, as they could not show that they were affected in a particularized way by the alleged bribery scheme. * Even accepting as true the allegation that Singer bribed university officials and manipulated the college admissions process, the court recognized "the clear standing principle that an injury in fact cannot just be based on some morally reprehensible act." Rather, there must be a link between the bad act and the plaintiff to avoid the "generalized grievance" that courts have routinely rejected for purposes of Article III standing. * Significantly, to the extent Singer was able to obtain admission for individuals who would not have otherwise been admitted, the slots that were "compromised" were slots reserved for student athletes. None of the named plaintiffs, however, alleged that they were seeking admission as student athletes. Thus, the required "link" between Singer's alleged actions and the plaintiffs themselves was lacking. Notably, Judge Davila dismissed the plaintiffs' claims without leave to amend, holding that repleading would be futile because additional allegations supporting the plaintiffs' theory would not change the underlying fatal flaw: that the named plaintiffs conceded that the bribery scheme involved slots reserved for college athletes, while the general admission slots were unaffected. * Moreover, because the original named plaintiffs lacked standing, the court could not grant leave to add a new plaintiff. As the court explained, when subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking at the commencement of the suit, a court cannot cure the jurisdictional defect by allowing the intervention of a substitute plaintiff who does have standing. [GN] JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: BCBSA Sues Over Delayed Generic Drug Entry ---------------------------------------------------------------- BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE CARRIER FOR THE SERVICE BENEFIT PLAN, A/K/A THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PROGRAM, A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS ACT PLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; EUROHEALTH (USA), INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; LUPIN LTD.; LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; and LUPIN INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04667 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2, monopolization and monopolistic scheme under state law, conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade under state law, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated consumers, alleges that Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of sodium oxybate drug called Xyrem, is engaged in anticompetitive schemes to impair and delay generic competition in the market for sodium oxybate oral solution. These schemes include: (1) acquiring and enforcing bogus patents, (2) prosecuting citizen petitions before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that had no realistic likelihood of success, (3)and abusing the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS)-related FDA approval conditions for Xyrem to frustrate efforts by would be generic competitors to gain FDA approval for their own generic versions of the product. Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals initiated a series of unlawful market allocation agreements with its would-be generic competitors to ensure the continued high prices for Xyrem through volume-limited supplies that it provided to them. In exchange, generics drug competitors dropped their patent challenges against Jazz Pharmaceuticals and agreed to postpone generic entry for years. As a result of the illegal monopolization and market restriction agreements of Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals and other Defendant conspirators, the Plaintiff and Class members are forced to pay artificially-inflated, supracompetitive prices for Xyrem. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) is a national association of 36 independent and locally operated Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies providing health plans to over 107 million members nationwide, with principal place of business located at 225 North Michigan Ave., Chicago, Illinois. Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC is an Ireland public limited biopharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. It is the parent company of Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. Its U.S. headquarters is located at 3170 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, California. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited is a pharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC is a multinational pharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, with its principal place of business at 1 New Burlington Place, London, W1S 2HR and its U.S. headquarters at 246 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. is a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer with its principal place of business at 2001 Arlington Lane, Columbus, Ohio. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 246 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC. Eurohealth (USA), Inc. is a pharmaceutical manufacturing company with its principal place of business at 401 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC is a limited liability company that manufactures and supplies generic pharmaceuticals organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 400 Crossing Boulevard, Bridgewater, New Jersey. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at One Ram Ridge Rd., Chestnut Ridge, New York. Lupin Ltd. is a public limited company organized and existing under the laws of India, with its principal place of business at B/4 Laxmi Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051, India. Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111 South Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland. Lupin Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111 South Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina C. Sharp, Esq. Scott Grzenczyk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California St., Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com - and – Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Lauren G. Barnes, Esq. Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com lauren@hbsslaw.com bradleyv@hbsslaw.com - and – Brendan G. Stuhan, Esq. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION 1310 G Street, N.W., 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 942-1069 Facsimile: (202) 942-1143 E-mail: brendan.stuhan@bcbsa.com - and – Mark Fischer, Esq. Jeffrey Swann, Esq. Robert C. Griffith, Esq. RAWLINGS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1 Eden Parkway La Grange, KY 40031 Telephone: (502) 814-2139 E-mail: mdf@rawlingsandassociates.com js5@rawlingsandassociates.com rg1@rawlingsandassociates.com JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: GEHA Sues Over Delayed Generic Drug Entry --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; EUROHEALTH (USA), INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; LUPIN LTD.; LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; and LUPIN INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04671 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2, monopolization and monopolistic scheme under state law, conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade under state law, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of sodium oxybate drug called Xyrem, is engaged in anticompetitive practices and unlawful payoffs to its would-be competitors in order to delay and impair generic competition in the market for sodium oxybate oral solution, perhaps as long as until the end of 2025. The anticompetitive acts committed by Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals with the help of other Defendant conspirators include acquiring and enforcing bogus patents, prosecuting citizen petitions before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that had no realistic likelihood of success, and abusing the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS)-related FDA approval conditions for Xyrem to frustrate efforts by would be generic competitors to gain FDA approval for their own generic versions of the product. Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals also maintained its monopoly power in the market by initiating a series of unlawful market allocation agreements with its would-be generic competitors to ensure the continued high prices for Xyrem and at the same time settle various patent challenges filed against it by other generic drug manufacturers. As a result of the Defendants' market restriction agreements, the Plaintiff and Class members are forced to pay artificially-inflated, supracompetitive prices for Xyrem. Government Employees Health Association, Inc. (GEHA) is a not-for-profit association that provides health and dental plans to federal employees and retirees, with a principal place of business is located at 310 NE Mulberry Street, Lee's Summit, Missouri. Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC is an Ireland public limited biopharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. It is the parent company of Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. Its U.S. headquarters is located at 3170 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, California. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited is a pharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC is a multinational pharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, with its principal place of business at 1 New Burlington Place, London, W1S 2HR and its U.S. headquarters at 246 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. is a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer with its principal place of business at 2001 Arlington Lane, Columbus, Ohio. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 246 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC. Eurohealth (USA), Inc. is a pharmaceutical manufacturing company with its principal place of business at 401 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC is a limited liability company that manufactures and supplies generic pharmaceuticals organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 400 Crossing Boulevard, Bridgewater, New Jersey. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at One Ram Ridge Rd., Chestnut Ridge, New York. Lupin Ltd. is a public limited company organized and existing under the laws of India, with its principal place of business at B/4 Laxmi Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051, India. Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111 South Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland. Lupin Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111 South Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina C. Sharp, Esq. Scott Grzenczyk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California St., Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com - and – Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Lauren G. Barnes, Esq. Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com lauren@hbsslaw.com bradleyv@hbsslaw.com - and – Mark Fischer, Esq. Jeffrey Swann, Esq. Robert C. Griffith, Esq. RAWLINGS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1 Eden Parkway La Grange, KY 40031 Telephone: (502) 814-2139 E-mail: mdf@rawlingsandassociates.com js5@rawlingsandassociates.com rg1@rawlingsandassociates.com JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Martinez Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as DOLORES MARTINEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01087-LA (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. 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 JP MORGAN: Fields Sues in E.D. Arkansas Alleging TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association. The case is styled as Jason Fields, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association, Case No. 4:20-cv-00823-BSM (E.D. Ark., July 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase Bank or often as Chase, is a national bank headquartered in Manhattan, New York City, that constitutes the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the U.S. multinational banking and financial services holding company, JPMorgan Chase.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Andrew Bright, Esq. TAYLOR KING LAW, P.A. 320 Main Street Arkadelphia, AR 71923 Phone: (870) 246-0505 Email: richardbright@taylorkinglaw.com JP MORGAN: Tax Divas Seeks to Recover Fees for PPP Loan Agents -------------------------------------------------------------- Tax Divas, LLC and Williams and J Bookkeeping, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK and CITIBANK, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-05311 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2020), asserts claims for declaratory relief, unjust enrichment, conversion, money had and received, and breach of contract; seeks to vindicate the Plaintiffs' rights and those of other agents similarly situated; and seeks to recover the Agent Fees to which they are entitled. In March of 2020, as the SARS-CoV-2 virus--the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease--spread across the United States, the Congress passed and President Donald J. Trump signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act"), a $2 trillion coronavirus response bill intended to speed relief across the American economy. Along with other provisions, the CARES Act created the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") to funnel forgivable loans to small businesses. The CARES Act initially authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans; that money quickly ran out, and Congress later authorized an additional $310 billion to the program. Small businesses were invited to apply for PPP funds starting April 3, 2020. Applicants could seek PPP loan funding through certain pre-approved Small Business Administration ("SBA") lenders or through any federally insured depository institution, federally insured credit union, or Farm Credit System institution that chose to participate. The amount of money offered to small business applicants was based on applicants' historical payroll information with specific limitations. But because the purpose of the program was to make money available quickly, lending institutions were not required to independently verify applicants' representations. Instead, small businesses seeking PPP funding were required to make specific attestations and certifications under penalty of serious civil and criminal penalties, including imprisonment and hefty fines. Mary Fries, Tax Divas' owner and founder, assisted her small business clients with preparing and submitting PPP loan applications to the Defendants. She helped one client apply for funding with Chase, securing a PPP loan in the amount of $200,000; and helped another client apply for funding with Citibank, securing a PPP loan of $5,000. Jenene Williams, the owner and founder of Williams and J Bookkeeping, assisted her small business client with preparing and submitting a PPP loan application to Defendant Chase. She helped her client secure a PPP loan in the amount of $67,417 through Chase. According to the complaint, despite clear direction from the SBA that the Agent fees "will be paid by the lender out of the fees the lender receives from the SBA," and despite certifying under penalty of perjury that it was in compliance and would remain in compliance with PPP regulations, neither of the Defendants has remitted any Agent Fees to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are not alone in their predicament. Each Defendant has enacted a companywide policy to deny Agents the Agent Fees to which they are entitled. Not one of the Defendants implemented any process for identifying the Agents who assisted borrowers in obtaining PPP loans—likely hoping that the absence of such records would relieve them of the obligation to pay Agents their mandatory fees. Plaintiff Tax Divas is an accounting firm located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiff Williams and J Bookkeeping is a bookkeeping firm located in Texas. The Defendants are national banks headquartered in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Andrea R. Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com agold@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com JRSK INC: Young Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------------------- JRSK, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JRSK, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05419 (S.D. N.Y., July 14, 2020). JRSK, Inc., doing business as Away, is an American online and storefront retailer. It is best known as a luggage designer, manufacturer and retailer, and led by founders, Steph Korey and Jen Rubio, in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com JWH HOLDINGS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Tenzer-Fuchs Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE TENZER-FUCHS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JWH HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a J.W. HULME CO. Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03149-GRB-ARL (E.D.N.Y., July 15, 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. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and the resulting denial of equal access to the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("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. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who suffers from what constitutes a "qualified disability" under the ADA. JWH Holdings, LLC, d/b/a J.W. Hulme Co., is a Minnesota-based company whose line of business includes the manufacturing of luggage from leather.[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 KIRKLAND LAKE: Rosen Notes of Aug. 28 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. between January 8, 2018 and November 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 28, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Kirkland investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Kirkland class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1892.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting, especially as it relates to its projections of risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs; (2) as a result of the known, but undisclosed, impending acquisition of Detour Gold Corporation, Kirkland's projections relating to its risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs were false and misleading; (3) Kirkland's financial statements and projections were not fairly presented in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards; and (4) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Kirkland's business, operations, and prospects and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1892.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/[GN] KIRSCHENBAUM & PHILLIPS: Ruffin Files Suit under FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C. The case is styled as Ronald Ruffin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C., LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Capital Services Limited Partnership agent of, a/k/a Resurgent Capital Services LP, f/k/a Alegis Group Limited Partnership and Sherman Financial Group LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-05422 (S.D. N.Y., July 14, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act. Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C. is a debt-collection law firm located at 40 Daniel Street, Suite 7, Farmingdale, NY 11735-9806. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Adam Schlanger, Esq. Schlanger Law Group, LLP 80 Broad Street, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 500-6114 Fax: (646) 612-7996 Email: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net KROGER CO: Mislabels Products With Acetaminophen, Hartwich Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- REYNOLDS HARTWICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE KROGER CO. and RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, a division of the Kroger Company, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01253 (C.D. Cal., July 14, 2020) alleges that Defendants' advertisements, marketing representations, and placement of their pain reliever and fever reducer products for children that contain acetaminophen are misleading, untrue, and likely to deceive reasonable consumers. Ralphs Grocery is a division of the Kroger Company, and sells a brand of pain reliever and fever reducer under the "Kroger" label, including Infants' Pain & Fever Acetaminophen -- Kroger and Children's Pain & Fever Acetaminophen -- Kroger, two well-known brand-name Over The Counter medications. According to the complaint, the products contain an active ingredient known as acetaminophen, which can be dangerous, and perhaps even fatal, if taken in large doses. The potential risks associated with an acetaminophen overdose terrifies parents and caregivers and causes them to be extra careful when buying medicine for their children. Defendants exploit this fear by misleading consumers. Kroger purposely distributes and packages Infants' Products with distinctive lettering of the word "infants'" on the product's front-label, while packaging Children's Products with distinctive lettering of the word "Children's" on the product's front-label. Accordingly, Defendants distribute, market, and sell the Products in a manner which deceives reasonable consumers into thinking that infants cannot safely take Children's Products. Furthermore, Defendants market and sell Infants' Products to consumers, such as Plaintiff, at a substantially higher price than Children's Products, despite the fact that the Products contain the same exact amount of acetaminophen in the same dosage amounts. The Kroger Company is an Ohio-based retail company. Ralphs Grocery Company is an American supermarket chain in Southern California.[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 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com nabaie@pswlaw.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com jbourne@pswlaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 300 S. Biscayne Blvd, #2704 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 610-5523 E-mail: Rachel@dapeer.com KROTO INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Riggs Claims --------------------------------------------------------- The case WILLIAM RIGGS, an individual and Florida resident, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. KROTO, INC., D/B/A ICANVAS, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04705 (N.D. Cal., July 14, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure to protect its customers' personal and payment information. On or about June 24, 2020, iCanvas began notifying customers and state Attorneys General about a data breach that occurred from May 10 to 28, 2020. Hackers not only "scraped" many of iCanvas' customers' names from Defendant's website by infecting the ecommerce platform with malware, hackers also stole customers' payment card numbers, CVV security codes, credit card expiration dates, addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses ("PII"). The criminals obtained everything they needed to illegally use iCanvas' customers' payment cards to make fraudulent purchases, and to steal the customers' identities. According to the complaint, because of Defendant's Data Breach, customers' PII is still available on the dark web for criminals to access and abuse. iCanvas' customers face a lifetime risk of identity theft. Plaintiff and similarly situated iCanvas customers have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i) lost or diminished value of PII; (ii) out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their PII; (iii) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach, including but not limited to lost time, (iv) deprivation of rights they possess under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; and (v) the continued and certainly an increased risk to their PII, which: (a) remains available on the dark web for individuals to access and abuse; and (b) remains in Defendant's possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII. Kroto, Inc., d/b/a iCanvas, specializes in selling canvas image and art prints through its website, www.icanvas.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Leslie Guillon, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: ABerry@Justice4You.com LGuillon@Justice4You.com LIQUID WEB: Licea Removed From Super. Court to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIQUID WEB, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV18957 (Filed May 15, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 30, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05957-JFW-MRW to the proceeding. According to the complaint, the Defendant made automatic renewal offers for its website hosting subscription plans and related products to consumers, including to the Plaintiff and putative class members without setting forth the Defendant's full cancellation policy as set forth in the Defendant's terms and conditions in a "clear and conspicuous manner" as required by Cal. & Bus. Prof. Code section 17602(a)(1). Liquid Web provides managed hosting solutions for mission critical sites & apps.[BN] Defendant Liquid Web is represented by: Michael L. Mallow, Esq. Robert E. Feyder, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 424 285 8330 Facsimile: 424 204 9093 E-mail: mmallow@shb.com rfeyder@shb.com LIVE OAK LANDSCAPE: Ex-Worker Files Wage and Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Maximino Herrera, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Live Oak Landscape Contractors, Inc. and all other affiliated entities and/or joint employers and Michael Sidlowski, individually, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07330 (D. N.J., June 16, 2020), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and redress for retaliation. Herrera was employed full time by Live Oak and performed landscaping and snow removal duties from 1998 to March 26, 2020. Herrera claims to have routinely worked well in excess of forty hours in a workweek with appropriate overtime premiums. After twenty-two years of working for Live Oak, Herrera was terminated as a result of his objections to unfair pay practices. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 33 State Road, Suite A-1 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Town Kitchen Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al. The case is styled as Town Kitchen LLC, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Known As Syndicate ENH 5151, NEO 2468 XLC 2003, TAL 1183, TRV 5000, AGR 3268, ACS 1856, NVA 2007, HDU 382, PPP 1980, AMA 1200, ASC 1414 and VSM 5678; Indian Harbor Insurance Company; Case No. 1:20-cv-22832-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 10, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. Lloyd's of London is a British insurance market where members operate as syndicates to insure and spread out the risks of different businesses, organizations, and individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Bruce Love, Esq. Lindsey Caryn Grossman, Esq. Michael Elliot Criden, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE PA 7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Phone: (305) 357-9000 Fax: 357-9050 Email: klove@cridenlove.com lgrossman@cridenlove.com mcriden@cridenlove.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason Alexander Pill, Esq. Sarah Beth Van Schoyck, Esq. John David Mullen, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 472-7550 Fax: (813) 472-7570 Email: Pillj@phelps.com sarah.vanschoyck@phelps.com john.mullen@phelps.com M B-REAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M B-REAL, INC. D/B/A AMERICAN LENDING CO., and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06281 (C.D. Cal., July 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). According to the complaint, the Defendants contacted the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff using an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to promote and sell the Defendants' services. The Defendants placed multiple calls on the Plaintiff's cellular telephones without obtaining prior express consent in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA. M B-Real, Inc., d/b/a American Lending Co., is a lender providing business loans, lines of credit and other financial products, with a principal place of business in Santa Ana, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 619-8966 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com MANHEIM, PA: T.G. Files Civil Rights Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manheim Township, et al. The case is styled as T.G., individually and as parent of minor A.M.; A.M., a minor; C.T., as parent of minors N.T. and C.T.; N.T., a minor; C.T., a minor; and/or on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Manheim Township, Kristal Narkiewicz, John/Jane Does #1-50 Case No. 2:20-cv-03378 (E.D. Pa., July 10, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Manheim Township is a township in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, established in 1729. Manheim's southernmost border meets the city limits of Lancaster. Manheim's population, as of the 2010 census, was 38,133.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Conor Corcoran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF J. CONOR CORCORAN 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 620 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 735-1135 Fax: (215) 735-1175 Email: conorcorcoran@yahoo.com MASSACHUSETTS: Bail Consideration Bid in Grinis Inmates Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALEXANDER GRINIS, MICHAEL GORDON, and ANGEL SOLIZ, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Petitioners, v. STEPHEN SPAULDING, Warden of Federal Medical Center Devens, and MICHAEL CARVAJAL, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, in their official capacities, Respondents, Civil Action No. 20-10738-GAO (D. Mass.), Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the Petitioners' Motion for Immediate Bail Consideration, Temporary Restraining Order, and Preliminary Injunctive Relief. The Petitioners, Grinis, Gordon and Soliz, inmates now in custody at Federal Medical Center Devens ("FMC Devens"), bring what they characterize as a class action habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 against respondents Stephen Spaulding, Warden at FMC Devens, and Michael Carvajal, Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). The Petitioners seek to represent: (1) a subclass of all persons who, according to applicable CDC guidelines, are at high risk of injury or death from COVID-19, due to their advanced age or medical condition(s) ("Medically Vulnerable Subclass"); and (2) a subclass of all persons who are appropriate candidates for early transfer to home confinement ("Home Confinement Appropriate Subclass"). The Petitioners allege that their detention is in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because of the threat of infection by the virus COVID-19. Pending before the Court is their Motion for Immediate Bail Consideration, Temporary Restraining Order, and Preliminary Injunctive Relief. The Petitioners request an order of the Court releasing sufficient Class Members on bail to ensure effective social distancing at FMC Devens in compliance with CDC guidelines. They also seek a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction ordering the Respondents to comply with CDC guidelines and best practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including, without limitation, by reducing the prisoner population at FMC Devens sufficiently to permit effective social distancing. The Court heard oral argument from both the Petitioners and the Respondents. Separately, the Petitioners filed a Motion for Class Certification or Representative Habeas Action. The parties have briefed but have not yet been heard in argument on that motion. Judge O'Toole holds that the Petitioners have not demonstrated that they have a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their pleaded claims. They have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on their underlying theory of liability: that by failing to release a significant number of inmates as they demand, the respondents have subjected them to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Both the BOP and FMC Devens have made significant changes in operations in response to COVID-19. The Respondents' papers outline the steps taken by them at both the national and institutional levels. The Attorney General has instructed BOP facilities to transfer appropriate qualifying inmates from institutional incarceration to home confinement pursuant to the recently enacted "CARES Act." Indeed, the Court was informed at the hearing on the present motion that FMC Devens was preparing to transfer petitioner Grinis to home confinement in early May, but that he had objected to one of the steps in the process, completion of a fourteen-day quarantine period. It is not clear what his status is now. Unlike petitioner Grinis, however, Petitioners Gordon and Soliz are serving lengthy sentences for serious drug offenses. T hey have not shown that it is likely that they would qualify for transfer from incarceration to home confinement under the current BOP eligibility requirement, and therefore they have not shown that they personally have a likelihood of success in obtaining the relief prayed for in their petition. Finally, the Petitioners' request to be admitted to bail also lacks merit. While a district court may have "inherent power" to release a habeas petitioner pending determination of the merits of the petition, a bail decision is a highly particularized one, involving detailed consideration of factors such as the nature and circumstances of the offense of conviction, the history and characteristics of the petitioner, and the nature or seriousness of any danger to the community from the release of the prisoner. The Petitioners do not address such considerations, instead basing their request for bail on the circumstances of their confinement alone, rather than on the particular factors as applied to each of them. So even if the action is properly characterized as a habeas petition, which is subject to doubt, the basis for making a considered bail decision is lacking. For the foregoing reasons, Judge O'Toole denied the Motion for Immediate Bail Consideration, Temporary Restraining Order, and Preliminary Injunctive Relief. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/LOsbw3 from Leagle.com. MCCARTHY & BURGESS: Lindala Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM LINDALA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MCCARTHY, BURGESS & WOLFF, INC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01080-PP (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. 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 MDL 2047: Court Refuses to Strike Bid to File Additional Exhibits ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Elizabeth Bennett, et al. v. Gebr. Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, et al., No. 14-2722., SECTION L (2), Civil Action MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Additional Exhibits in Support of Opposition to Summary Judgment. From 2004 through 2006, the housing boom in Florida and rebuilding efforts necessitated by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina led to a shortage of construction materials, including drywall. As a result, drywall manufactured in China was brought into the United States and used to construct and refurbish homes in coastal areas of the country, notably the Gulf Coast and East Coast. Sometime after the installation of the Chinese drywall, homeowners began to complain of emissions of foul-smelling gas, the corrosion and blackening of metal wiring, surfaces, and objects, and the breaking down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes. Many of these homeowners also began to complain of various physical afflictions believed to be caused by the Chinese drywall. These homeowners then began to file suit in various state and federal courts against homebuilders, developers, installers, realtors, brokers, suppliers, importers, exporters, distributors, and manufacturers who were involved with the Chinese drywall. As a result, many homebuilders also filed suit seeking to recoup their damages. Because of the commonality of facts in the various cases, the litigation was designated as a multidistrict litigation. Pursuant to a Transfer Order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 15, 2009, all federal cases involving Chinese drywall were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in MDL 09-2047 before the Court. Since that date, numerous cases have been consolidated, involving thousands of individua l claims; over 20,000 documents have been entered into the record, millions of documents have been exchanged in discovery, depositions have been taken in the United States and in China, and over 30 Pretrial Orders have been issued; the Court has appointed steering committees and liaison counsel for the Plaintiffs, homebuilders, insurers, installers, and manufacturers, and it has presided over monthly status conferences, hearings, and several bellwether trials. The Chinese drywall at issue was largely manufactured by two groups of Defendants: (1) the Knauf Entities and (2) the Taishan Entities. The litigation has focused upon these two entities and their downstream associates and has proceeded on strikingly different tracks for the claims against each group. The Knauf Entities are German-based, international manufacturers of building products, including drywall, whose Chinese subsidiary, Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. ("KPT"), advertised and sold its Chinese drywall in the United States. The Knauf Entities are named Defendants in numerous cases consolidated with the MDL litigation and litigation in state courts. On Dec. 20, 2011, the Knauf Entities and the PSC entered into a global, class Settlement Agreement, which was designed to resolve all Knaufrelated, Chinese drywall claims. In addition to the Knauf Settlement Agreement and after a jury trial in a bellwether case, numerous defendants in the chain-of-commerce with the Knauf Entities have entered into class settlement agreements, the effect of which settles almost all of the Knauf Entities' chain-of-commerce litigation. The total amount of the Knauf Settlement is approximately $1.1 billion. The instant matter is a purported class action filed on Nov. 13, 2014 by Ms. Bennett in the Northern District of Alabama. Ms. Bennett raised claims on her own behalf and on the behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated homeowners who allegedly suffered damages due to the presence of defective Chinese drywall in their homes. The Plaintiffs raised claims against the Knauf Entities for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, redhibition, violations of the Louisiana Products Liability Act, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, unjust enrichment, violations of consumer protection laws, and equitable and injunctive relief and medical monitoring with respect to the manufacture of allegedly defective Chinese drywall. In January 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the case to the Eastern District of Louisiana and consolidated it with the In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Liability Litigation, MLD 09-2047, currently pending before the Court. On Oct. 31, 2019, the Court granted leave for the Plaintiffs to add several new Plaintiffs to the action. The case now involves approximately 130 affected properties. With discovery complete, the Knauf Defendants have begun to file dispositive motions targeting the claims of several individual Plaintiffs. On March 31, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Alternative Motion for Adverse Inference, targeting the claims of Byron and Fern Robbins. R. Doc. 22686. Specifically, Defendants explained that at their depositions, the Robbinses alluded to the existence of a pre-purchase home inspection report and a lab report. However, despite Defendants' request, these documents were not produced before the close of discovery on December 31, 2019. Plaintiffs oppose the motion for summary judgment. R. Doc. 22795. On May 12, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an ex-parte Motion for Leave to File Additional Exhibits in support of their opposition, explaining that they had located the two outstanding documents upon which Defendants' motion was based, in addition to other exhibits "germane to the issues raised by Defendants." R. Doc. 22820 at 1. On May 12, 2020, the Defendants filed the instant motion, seeking to strike the Plaintiffs' Motion to File Additional Exhibits and preclude the Court from considering the documents the Plaintiffs intend to introduce. They characterize the introduction of these exhibits as "trial by ambush," as they had no opportunity to depose the Robbinses regarding these documents nor the opportunity to address the documents in their summary judgment briefing as their underlying motion for summary judgment was set for May 13, 2020, the day after the Plaintiffs' motion was filed. The Plaintiffs' opposition was due on May 19, 2020. No such opposition was filed. Judge Fallon holds that despite the significant obstacles caused by the Plaintiffs' behavior in the matter, he declines to strike the motion at this time. Instead, in the interest of justice to both parties,he will allow the Defendants to re-depose the Plaintiffs with respect to these newly-produced documents and supplement their Motion for Summary Judgment to reflect any additional facts or arguments developed in light of the deposition. Because the Plaintiffs caused hardship to the Defendants by claiming that the documents had been discarded and then producing them at the eleventh hour, rendering the Defendants unable to examine them or make use of their contents, the deposition is to be at the Plaintiffs' cost. In the event that the Plaintiffs fail to abide by the Order, the Judge will strike the Plaintiffs' motion and prohibit them from filing these additional documents. Based on the foregoing, Judge Fallon denied Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Additional Exhibits in Support of Opposition to Summary Judgment without prejudice to the right to refile the motion in the event the Plaintiffs fail to abide by the Order. The parties were ordered to arrange a second deposition of the Robbinses to discuss the documents attached to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Additional Exhibits in Support of Opposition to Summary Judgment, at the Plaintiffs' cost, by June 17, 2020. The submission date on the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Alternative Motion for Adverse Inference was continued to early July 2020. The Judge denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to Expedite Hearing of the Knauf Defendants' Motion to Strike Supplemental Claims in Amended Complaints. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Order & Reasons is available at https://is.gd/Vjyyiq from Leagle.com. MDL 2924: Leadership Structure in Zantac Liability Suit Established ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2924, No. 20-MD-2924 (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has issued the Court's Pretrial Order No. 20, establishing the Plaintiffs' leadership structure, appointing the leadership members, and designating the leadership duties and responsibilities. In early May 2020, the Court held interviews of 62 applicants for leadership positions in the multi-district litigation (MDL). Having reviewed all submissions by the counsel, and having considered the interviews conducted by videoconference, due to the inability of the Court to conduct the interviews in person in light of the coronavirus pandemic, Judge Rosenberg issues the Order to, among other things, (1) establish the Plaintiffs' leadership structure; (2) appoint the Plaintiffs' leadership members; and (3) designate their leadership duties and responsibilities. The Court hopes and assumes that the counsel appointed to leadership positions will take full advantage of the range of talent among other counsel, whether through the formation of appropriate subcommittees or otherwise with both creative and diverse ideas, and yet a common vision. The Court hopes the Lead Counsel will consider drawing upon the resources of the many excellent firms not selected in this order as they build those subcommittees, in furtherance of their vision for the litigation. The Court will consider additional Steering Committee appointments as the litigation advances, recognizing the work performed by subcommittee members. The quality of the litigation will be greatly enhanced by the collective input of the talent of all of the attorneys in the litigation, guided and supported by the leadership team. Many attorneys gain invaluable experience and earn outstanding reputations from the work that they contribute to an MDL, without any formal leadership position, and it does not go unnoticed by their colleagues and the Court. The Court puts the following leadership structure in place based on all of the available information that the Court has at this time. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' leadership should be structured as follows, which includes a brief description of the leadership duties and responsibilities: (a) Co-Lead Counsel - The Judge appoints four Co-Lead Counsel for all economic loss, medical monitoring and injury/wrongful death cases. The Lead Counsel will have the duties outlined in the Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) ("MCL Fourth") Section 10.221, which include formulating (in consultation with other counsel) and presenting positions on substantive and procedural issues during the litigation. (b) Steering Committee - The Judge establishes a Steering Committee for all economic loss, medical monitoring, and injury/wrongful death cases. The Steering Committee will have the duties outlined in the MCL Fourth Section 10.221, which include preparing briefs or conducting portions of the discovery program. The Steering Committee is established to ensure that all group members' interests and positions are represented in decision making. (c) Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel - The Judge previously appointed Francisco Maderal as the Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, in PTO #5. The Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel will be responsible for facilitating communications with the Court and counsel in the action. The Liaison counsel will also assist all counsel in complying with the rules and procedures of the Court. In addition, Mr. Maderal will serve in an ex-officio capacity on the Steering Committee; in this role he will have the same responsibilities as all other members of the Steering Committee. (d) Leadership Development Committee - The Judge is keenly aware of the concerns raised in recent years about the challenges faced by less experienced attorneys in obtaining leadership appointments in MDL proceedings. He establishes a Leadership Development Committee ("LDC"). The LDC consists of attorneys who applied for leadership positions in the MDL, but whom the Court did not select for appointment to the PSC. It is the Judge's expectation that the PSC members will actively mentor and work closely with the attorneys appointed to the LDC so they have the opportunity to play a meaningful role in various aspects of the MDL, including subcommittee assignments, and thereby gain further experience in preparation for future service on steering committees. He also directs that Special Master Dodge will meet periodically with LDC members individually, and with the Co-Chairs of the LDC, to ensure that they are receiving appropriate opportunities for their ability and skills, including the opportunity to present before this Court. The Court makes the following appointments: a. Lead Counsel: Tracy A. Finken ANAPOL WEISS One Logan Square 130 North 18th Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103, Telephone: (215) 735-1130, Email: tfinken@anapolweiss.com; Robert C. Gilbert KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1100 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 384-7269 Email: gilbert@kolawyers.com Michael L. McGlamry POPE McGLAMRY, P.C. 3391 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 523-7706 Email: efile@pmkm.com Adam Pulaski PULASKI KHERKHER, PLLC 2925 Richmond Avenue, Suite 1725 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 664-4555 Email: adam@pulaskilawfirm.com b. Steering Committee: Rosemarie Riddell Bogdan MARTIN, HARDING & MAZZOTTI 1222, Troy-Schenectady Road PO Box 15141 Albany, NY 12212 Telephone: (518) 862-1200 Email: rosemarie.bogdan@1800law1010.com Mark J. Dearman ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Email: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com Elizabeth A. Fegan FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 South Wacker Drive, 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-1019 Email: beth@feganscott.com Marlene J. Goldenberg GOLDENBERGLAW, PLLC 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-4662 Email: mjgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com Roopal P. Luhana CHAFFIN LUHANA LLP 600 3rd Avenue, Floor 12 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (888) 480-1123 Email: luhana@chaffinluhana.com Ricardo M. Martinez-Cid PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. SunTrust International Center One SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Email: rmcteam@podhurst.com Lauren S. Miller CORY WATSON, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-2200 Email: lmiller@corywatson.com Melanie H. Muhlstock PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone: (516) 466-6500 Email: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com Daniel A. Nigh LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7013 Email: dnigh@levinlaw.com Carmen S. Scott MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9160 Email: cscott@motleyrice.com Mikal C. Watts WATTS GUERRA LLP Four Dominion Drive Building Three, Suite 100 San Antonio, TX 78257 Telephone: (210) 447-0500 Email: mcwatts@wattsguerra.com Sarah N. Westcot BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 220 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Email: swestcot@bursor.com Conlee S. Whiteley KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C. 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524-5777 Email: c.whiteley@kanner-law.com R. Brent Wisner BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C. 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 207-3233 Email: rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com Frank Woodson BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street PO Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36106 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Email: frank.woodson@beasleyallen.com. c. Leadership Development Committee: Paige Boldt WATTS GUERRA LLP Four Dominion Drive Building Three, Suite 100 San Antonio, TX 78257 Telephone: (210) 447-0500 Email: pboldt@wattsguerra.com Je Yon Jung MAY LIGHTFOOT, PLLC 3200 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE 3rd Floor Washington, DC 20032 Telephone: (202) 918-1824 Email: jjung@maylightfootlaw.com Adam William Krause KRAUSE AND KINSMAN, LLC 4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 250 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 760-2700 Email: adam@krauseandkinsman.com Nicola Larmond-Harvey SAUNDERS & WALKER, P.A. 3491 Gandy Boulevard North, Suite 200 Pinellas Park, FL 33781 Telephone: (727) 579-4500 Email: nicola@saunderslawyers.com Bradford B. Lear LEAR WERTS LLP 103 Ripley Street Columbia, MO 65201 Telephone: (573) 875-1991 Email: lear@learwerts.com The Court declines to appoint an Executive Committee at this time; in lieu of such an appointment, it makes the following designations: (i) Roopal Luhana as the Chair of the ESI/Document Production Committee; (ii) Ashley Keller as the Chair and Frederick Longer as Co-Chair of the Law & Briefing Committee; (iii) Melanie Muhlstock and Carmen Scott as Co-Chairs of the Leadership Development Committee; (iv) Daniel Nigh as the Chair of the Science & Experts Committee; and (v) Mikal Watts as the Chair and Brent Wisner as the Co-Chair of the Bellwether & Trial Team. The Court leaves designation of other committee co-chairs, subcommittee membership, and creation of any other committees to the full discretion of Lead Counsel, including the timing of such decisions. The Court also directs the Lead Counsel to consider what structure will be most useful with respect to state/federal coordination, and to report on its recommendation at an upcoming status conference. In PTO #15, the Court ordered that the deadline for the first tranche of Census Plus Forms would be 60 days from the date of the Order. The Judge extends the deadline for submission of the Census Plus Forms for both filed and unfiled cases by 14 days. The extension will only apply to those forms for cases filed in the MDL on May 22, 2020, or cases for which retention agreements are signed on May 22, 2020. The deadlines for cases filed or retained after May 22, 2020 are not extended by the Order. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Pretrial Order is available at https://is.gd/iTsXEL from Leagle.com. MIDLAND CREDIT: Angle Sues over Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------- KRISTINA M. ANGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01500 (N.D. Ohio, July 7, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short periods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Vlahakis, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575 – 8181 E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Ungar Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Menachem Ungar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-05361-VB (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2020), is brought under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act to seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief as a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices. On June 17, 2020, the Plaintiff incurred an obligation to Citibank, N.A. The 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, specifically through a Costco Anywhere Visa Card by Citi Acq. The Citibank, N.A. obligation is a "debt." Citibank, N.A. is a "creditor." Citibank, N.A. or a subsequent owner of the debt contracted the Defendant MCM to collect the alleged debt. On June 17, 2020, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter regarding the alleged Citibank, N.A. debt. The letter in the top right corner states, "Extra Flexibility in Light of Recent Events Stop the Pre-Legal Review. The phrase "Pre-Legal" indicates that the review would not be done by an attorney, but rather through a "Pre-Legal" process, i.e., a review before the file reaches an attorney. The letter further states "We know times are tough. That's why we are offering you additional flexibility--and more time--to avoid the planned attorney review." The language "attorney review" implies that an actual attorney will be reviewing the file, according to the complaint. The letter makes a statement that can have two meanings only one of which can be true. The consumer does not know if making a payment as provided in the letter would avoid actual legal review by an attorney which would mean the possibility of litigation is imminent or if a payment would be avoiding a pre-legal review which means that litigation is less imminent and therefore would have an impact on whether and when the consumer would make payments provided for in the letter. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged. Plaintiff Menachem Ungar is a resident of the State of New York. MCM is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com MSC INDUSTRIAL: New York Court Dismisses Guglielmo Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MSC INDUSTRIAL DIRECT CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 20 CV 31-LTS-KNF (S.D. N.Y.). The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the putative class action has been or will be settled. Accordingly, the action is dismissed with prejudice as to the named Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all the 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 60 days of the date of the Order. If a party wishes to reopen the matter or extend the time within which it may be settled, the party must make a letter application before the 60-day period expires. The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain jurisdiction in this matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court to be so ordered. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/f3dIkZ from Leagle.com. MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE: Fails to Secure PII, Stoll Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- RAY STOLL and HEIDI IMHOF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE, CHARTERED d/b/a FLORIDA ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE, Case No. 109606945 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., June 30, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, medical information, and other personally identifiable information. The PII includes names, social security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, diagnosis codes, financial information, and treatment information. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain that PII, and failed to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to the Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their PII had been compromised. The Plaintiffs seek orders requiring the Defendant to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised, to adopt reasonably sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure in the future, and to provide for the lifetimes of the Plaintiffs and Class Members identity theft protective services as the Plaintiffs and Class Members will be at an increased risk of identity theft due to the conduct of the Defendant. On April 9, 2020, FOI experienced a ransomware attack which resulted in exposure of sensitive and private PII of at least 100,000 patients, and potentially in excess of 150,000 patients of Defendant (the "Data Disclosure"). The Plaintiffs were customers and patients of FOI, whose PII was disclosed without authorization to an unknown third party as a result of the Data Disclosure. Founded in 1989, FOI has grown from twelve orthopaedists working in one office and one hospital to over forty physicians, twenty-five mid-level providers, fifteen Fellows, and a professional staff of more than 700, working in nine offices and nineteen regional hospitals, two Surgery Centers and two Orthopaedic Urgent Care centers. FOI offers a comprehensive range of specialized orthopedic services involving, bones, muscles or joints, including foot and ankle, hand and write, joint arthroplasty, oncology, orthopaedic trauma, pain management, rehabilitation medicine, shoulder and elbow, spine surgery and sports medicine.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan J. McGee, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com rmcgee@ForThePeople.com - and - William 'Billy' Peerce Howard, Esq. Heather H. Jones, Esq. Amanda J. Allen, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 4030 Henderson Boulevard Tampa, FL 33629 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com NAB: 45,000+ Aussies Receive Share of $49.5MM Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Stuart Marsh, writing for 9News, reports that almost 50,000 Australians was set to receive their share of a $49.5 million class action settlement against consumer bank NAB on July 9. Law firm Slater and Gordon settled the action against the bank in November last year, following allegations NAB had sold insurance policies that were effectively useless in practice. Details of the insurance policies came to light during the banking royal commission, in which it was revealed many customers did not know they were paying for insurance policies, or were ineligible to ever claim. Slater and Gordon's Senior Associate David Barda said it was a good result for the average Australian involved in the class action. "We are pleased we can finally mark the end of this class action against NAB with a positive result for tens of thousands of Australians who will wake up with a bit of extra money in their bank accounts," Mr Barda said. "Class actions are often the only way people have the means through which to take on big business when they have been hurt or ripped off; the NAB class action has meant almost 50,000 people have received what was rightfully owed to them, without having to do much more than fill out a couple of short forms." In May this year the Federal Court approved the settlement, which related to two policies including NAB Credit Card Cover and NAB Personal Loan Cover. Both of these products are no longer sold by NAB. At the time, NAB's Chief Legal and Commercial Counsel Sharon Cook said the bank was happy to have resolved the issue for affected customers. "We are pleased with the Federal Court's decision and to be able to resolve this matter for our customers and shareholders," Ms Cook said in May. "As we have acknowledged, it is important to resolve past issues so that we can rebuild trust with our customers and the community." Mr Barda said Slater and Gordon were currently awaiting the resolution of three more class actions against ANZ, Westpac and Commbank. "The members of the class action haven't had to battle through court, or take on huge financial risk, and have still been vindicated at the end of the day," Mr Barda said. "The banking royal commission revealed reprehensible behaviour from large corporations and big banks; we will continue to fight on behalf of those affected and give them back their voice." [GN] NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Lim Asserts Breach of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc. The case is styled as Philip Lim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03126 (E.D. N.Y., July 14, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Nationwide Credit, Inc. provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services. The Company offers outsourcing, including contingency collections, first and third party, customer relationship management, attorney network, and skip program services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com - and - Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com NEW YORK BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Garcia Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK BUILDERS OF STAIRS INC.; and EDWARD BARAN, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-02993 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 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 Garcia was employed by the Defendants as laborer. New York Builders of Stairs Inc. specializes in design, manufacture and installation of custom wood stairs and railings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 571-0700 NEW YORK, NY: D. Murray Claims Dismissed in Syville Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SYVILLE et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-570-LTS (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order denying the claims of Dexter Murray, et al. By order dated Feb. 25, 2020, Chief Judge McMahon denied the Plaintiffs permission to prosecute the case as a class action, dismissed all claims of Plaintiff Syville that were purportedly asserted on behalf of other individuals, and stated that the claims of the 28 other named Plaintiffs would be dismissed without prejudice if those individuals failed to file declarations confirming their assent to the complaint and intention to proceed as Plaintiffs in the action within 30 days. On May 4, 2020, Plaintiff Syville filed a letter which included the required declarations signed by Donald Lord, Anthony McDonald, Raymon Dash, Anthony Ashley, Issac Dickerson, Eugene Davis, and Alfred Wilder. Judge Swain accepted these declarations as timely in light of the current public health crisis and the reasons stated in Plaintiff Syville's letter. The claims of all other named Plaintiffs, including those of Dexter Murray, are dismissed without prejudice. The application of Dexter Murray for a temporary restraining order is denied without prejudice, as his claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Chambers will mail a copy of the Order to Alphonso Syville, Donald Lord, Anthony McDonald, Raymon Dash, Anthony Ashley, Issac Dickerson, Eugene Davis, and Alfred Wilder. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/Ng72TD from Leagle.com. NEXTIER OILFIELD: Conditional Class Cert. Sought in Kenworthy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 conditionally certifying a class of: "all salaried Field Supervisors, Field Engineers and Specialists II employed by Defendants since May 7, 2017." The Plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of certain salaried 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 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Harris Sues over Warranty on Vehicle Parts ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOBBY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06021 (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2020) arises out of Nissan's failure to accurately and comprehensively identify the vehicle parts that should properly be classified as emissions warranty parts and high-cost emissions warranty parts under California's emission control system warranty requirements and covered under the emissions warranty for 7-years and 70,000 miles. According to the complaint, in order to minimize Nissan's warranty exposure, Nissan has unilaterally limited the parts that should be covered under the emissions warranty, and has limited the parts that are designated as high-cost emissions warranty parts, covered for 7-years and 70,000 miles, including the parts specifically identified by the Plaintiff. By not comprehensively identifying the parts that should be included as emissions warranty parts and high-cost warranty parts, Nissan is able to limit the warranty coverage for those parts. The fuel pump installed in the Class Vehicles is an emissions part and a high-cost warranty part. Nissan has wrongfully failed to identify the fuel pump installed in the Class Vehicles as an emissions part and as a high-cost emissions part. Nissan North America Inc. operates in the automotive industry. The Company designs, develops, and manufactures Nissan vehicles and distributes them through dealers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Ari Y. Basser, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com - and - Robert L. Starr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Ferretti Seeks Tuition Fee Refund --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, LEO FERRETTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-61431-RAR (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2020), arises from the Defendant's breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated persons, alleges that he and other students who paid tuition and fees to Nova Southeastern University (NSU) did not receive their bargained-for educational and other services and experiences, for which they paid and have not been refunded a properly prorated portion of their tuition and fees after NSU abruptly ceased providing such services to students during the spring of 2020 due to the spread of COVID-19. The Plaintiff and Class members seek proper, prorated refund or reimbursement for the unused services for which they already paid in the form of various university fees and the decreased value of the education they received as a result of classes transitioning from in-person/on-campus instruction to an entirely remote, virtual learning format. Nova Southeastern University, Inc., is a private corporation that owns and operates Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, as well as regional campuses across Florida and in Puerto Rico. Its principal place of business is located at 3301 College Ave., Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew D. Schultz, Esq. Rebecca K. Timmons, Esq. Brenton J. Goodman, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7140 Facsimile: (850) 436-6140 E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com btimmons@levinlaw.com bgoodman@levinlaw.com - and – Patrick Madden, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: pmadden@bm.net NR 1 TRANSPORT: Dawkins Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------- STEFANEE DAWKINS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NR 1 TRANSPORT, INC., ZBA, INC., and NERIJUS ZITKEVICIUS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04063 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2020) alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Plaintiff worked as a truck driver for Defendants for approximately 4 months -- for ZBA from approximately September 2018 to November 2018 and for NR 1 from approximately November 2018 to January 2019. According to the complaint, Defendants make regular deductions from truck drivers' weekly paychecks for insurance payments, office fee, and to be held in "escrow" as funds which Defendants agreed to be paid to truck drivers within 45 days of their termination. However, when Plaintiff was terminated at ZBA to begin driving for NR 1 in November 2018 as well as when she voluntarily terminated her employment with NR 1 in January 2019, Plaintiff was never paid any of the wages Defendants held in escrow. Additionally, Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff her last weekly paycheck in her last workweek dated January 7, 2019 through January 13, 2019, and refused to return any of the wages held in escrow. Nerijus Zitkevicius owns and operates NR1 Transport, Inc. and ZBA, Inc. NR 1 Transport, Inc. and ZBA, Inc. are freight shipping and trucking companies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq. Justin Tresnowski, Esq. HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DYM, LTD. 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: 312-580-0100 Emails: cwilmes@hsplegal.com jtresnowski@hsplegal.com PACIFIC FOODS: Falsely Markets Hemp Drinks, Weintz Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Weintz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pacific Foods of Oregon, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05385 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2020), seeks an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with regards to its hemp beverages purporting to be flavored only with vanilla under the Pacific Foods brand. The relevant front label representations include "Pacific Foods," "Hemp," "Plant- Based Beverage," "Vanilla," hemp seeds and several cured vanilla beans. The Plaintiff alleges that the unqualified, prominent and conspicuous representation of the Product's flavor as "Vanilla" is false, deceptive and misleading because the Product contains non-vanilla, artificial flavors, which imitate, resemble and extend vanilla's taste but are not derived from vanilla beans, yet these flavors are not disclosed to consumers on the front label as required and expected. The Product's front label of "Vanilla" without qualification gives reasonable consumers the impression that only vanilla ingredients provide its taste. However, the Product contains non-vanilla flavors, indicated on the ingredient list as "Natural Vanilla Flavor With Other Natural Flavors." The Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is designed to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud the Plaintiff and consumers, according to the complaint. The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers like the Plaintiff. The value of the Product that the Plaintiff purchased and consumed was materially less than its value as represented by the Defendant. Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for them, says the complaint. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $4.79 for cartons of 32 OZ (946 ML), excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way. The Plaintiff purchased the Product within her district and/or State for personal consumption. Pacific Foods of Oregon, LLC, manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells hemp beverages purporting to be flavored only with vanilla under the Pacific Foods brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com PARKING REVENUE: Cope Sues in Colorado Alleging FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Franklyn Cope, Rebecca Cope, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc., a Colorado corporation; Beyer & Associates, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; Case No. 1:20-cv-02014-KMT (D. Colo., July 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. specializes in Parking Enforcement and Collections.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Phone: (720) 213-0676 Fax: (303) 927-0898 Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com PENN NATIONAL: McCartney Seeks Underinsured Motorist Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MCCARTNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENN NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case ID: 200700849 (Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., July 14, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for denial of underinsured motorist coverage under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL). According to the complaint, the Defendant denied the consent to settlement of tort claims filed by the Plaintiff following a motor vehicle accident on the basis that it does not provide coverage for underinsured motorist benefits since the Plaintiff signed a Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Coverage Protection form. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant is required to provide underinsured motorist benefits under the Penn National Policy because it failed to specifically comply with the statutory mandate of the MVFRL. The Defendant failed to include the word "all" in the phrase "all losses and damages" in its Rejection of Underinsured Motorist Coverage Protection form, thereby rendering the form signed by the Plaintiff invalid. The Plaintiff seeks underinsured motorist benefits in an amount equal to the liability limits of coverage. Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance company with its principal place of business located at Two North Second Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Haggerty, Esq. HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 350-6000 - and - Scott B. Cooper, Esq. SCHMIDT KRAMER P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 232-6300 - and - Jonathan Shub, Esq. Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM 134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 772-7200 PHILLIPS & COHEN: Howard Hits Collection Letter Settlement Offer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carol Howard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. and Portfolio Asset Group, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00907, (E.D. Wis., June 16, 2019), seeks damages, restitution, and all other relief resulting from violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Phillips & Cohen Associates is engaged in the business of a collection agency. Portfolio Asset Group is engaged in the business of collecting debts owed to others and acquired after default. On or about May 13, 2020, Phillips and Cohen mailed a debt collection letter to Howard regarding an alleged debt owed to Portfolio Asset Group with a settlement offer that falsely stated or implied that the settlement offer is valid only if accepted within a certain period of time. [BN] 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 Tel: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com PLAID INC: Collects Bank Data Without Consent, Anderson et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARRIE ANDERSON; BRIAN McCRUDDEN; and JEFFREY SCHWEDOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PLAID INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04480 (N.D. Cal., July 7, 2020) is an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Plaid to cease its misconduct, purge the data it has unlawfully collected, notify consumers of its misconduct, and inform consumers of the steps they can take to protect themselves from further invasions. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Plaid takes consumers' financial account login credentials, accesses their banking and other financial accounts several times per day, and then sells and otherwise misuses the highly personal and private information it has wrongfully obtained. Plaid discloses none of this to consumers. Plaid exploits its ill-gotten information in a variety of ways, including marketing the data to its app customers, analyzing the data to derive insights into consumer behavior, and, most recently, selling its collection of data to Visa as part of a multi-billion dollar acquisition. Plaid has unfairly benefited from the personal information of millions of Americans and wrongfully intruded upon their private financial affairs. Plaid Inc. offers application programming interface that allow developers to programatically interact with banks and credit cards, giving them access to account and transactional data, including merchant names, street addresses, and geocoordinates. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Hartley, Esq. Jason Lindner, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 W. Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com lindner@hartleyllp.com - and - William G. Caldes, Esq. Jeffery L. Spector, Esq. Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. Diana J. Zinser, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: BCaldes@srkattorneys.com JSpector@srkattorneys.com JKodroff@srkattorneys.com DZinser@srkattorneys.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W-1050 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com PNC FINANCIAL: Denise M Henning CPA Seeks to Recover Agent Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Denise M. Henning, CPA LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., PNC Bank, N.A. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00905 (W.D. Penn., June 17, 2020), seeks compensation for processing PPP loans, for services rendered on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration loans under the CARES Act, for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion. On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This legislation included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by the United States Department of Treasury to provide support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES Act is the "Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small businesses with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks of cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are administered by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but funded by private lenders, including the Defendants. Denise M. Henning, CPA LLC, is a professional service corporation and CPA firm. It sought to obtain PPP loans through the Defendants on behalf of its clients and expected to be paid agent fees from the Defendants upon funding of its clients' loans under the PPP. However, it was denied these fees after the loans were released. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK 1835 Market St., Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 985-9177 Fax: (215) 985-4169 Email: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com - and - Elaine S. Kusel, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Ste. 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 Email: esk@mccunewright.com - and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. Michele M. Vercoski, Esq. Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Ste. 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 Email: rdm@mccunewright.com mmv@mccunewright.com tqn@mccunewright.com PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Must Face Overtime Wage Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that collateral estoppel and res judicata don't bar the claims of a former class member who, electing to pursue her claims individually, withdrew from a now-defeated overtime wage class action against Public Partnerships, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held. A defendant can't use final judgment in a class suit against a party who withdrew from it before judgment, Judge R. Barclay Surrick said in the July 7 order rejecting Public Partnerships' bid to end the suit. [GN] PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Publishers Clearing House LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Publishers Clearing House LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03120 (E.D. N.Y., July 14, 2020). Publishers Clearing House LLC operates as a multi-magazine subscription agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com REHAB AMERICA: Beard and Durret Sue Over Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE BEARD; and MONICA DURRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REHAB AMERICA, INC.; TRUADVANTAGE MISSOURI LLC; ANNETTE BAGWELL; ANNETTE MCCLARY; and JOHN DOES 1 – 5, Defendants, Case 3:20-cv-00578 (M.D. Tenn., July 6, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Beard was employed by the Defendants as occupational therapist. The Plaintiff Durrett was employed as speech therapist. Rehab America, Inc. offers physical, speech and occupational therapies in partnership with skilled nursing facilities and other healthcare providers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter F. Klett, Esq. Joshua Burgener, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 424 Church Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-6538 Facsimile: (844) 670-6009 E-mail: pklett@dickinsonwright.com jburgener@dickinsonwright.com - and - Trevor Howell, Esq. HOWELL LAW, PLLC Trevor Howell, TN Bar # 9496 P.O. Box 158511 Nashville, Tennessee 37216 Telephone: (615) 406-1417 E-mail: Trevor@howelllawfirmllc.com RICHMOND, CA: Fails to Pay Fire Inspectors Overtime, Padilla Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS PADILLA, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF RICHMOND, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-04597 (N.D. Cal., July 10, 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 Fire Inspector with the Richmond Fire Department. According to the complaint, Defendant impermissibly excluded all statutorily required forms of compensation in the regular rate of pay when computing Plaintiff's and other similarly situated employees' overtime pay. As a result, Defendant failed to fully compensate them for all overtime hours worked at one and one-half times their accurate regular rate of pay pursuant to the FLSA. City of Richmond is a city in western Contra Costa County, California, United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Mastagni, Esq. Isaac S. Stevens, Esq. Tashayla D. Billington, Esq. MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT 1912 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Tel: (916) 446-4692 Fax: (916) 447-4614 Emails: davidm@mastagni.com istevens@mastagni.com tbillington@mastagni.com RICK SNYDER: Carthan Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as Elnora Carthan, et al., v. Rick Snyder, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying class and 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 identified school or day care, and (c) were exposed through ingestion to unfiltered Flint public water at such residence, school or day care for at least 14 days within a 90 day period; 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"; 2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class representatives; 3. appointing Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel Theodore J. Leopold and Michael L. Pitt as Co-Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); and 4. appointing of the Executive Committee to serve the Class. This case asserts two types of liability claims: -- claims against the Government Defendants for violations of the right to bodily integrity guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and -- claims for professional negligence against two professional engineering firms, LAN and Veolia.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. 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 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 220 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com 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 42nd 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 - 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 - 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 E-mail: deblabelle@aol.com - and - Trachelle C. Young, Esq. TRACHELLE C. YOUNG & ASSOCIATES PLLC 2501 N. Saginaw St. Flint, MI 48505 Telephone: (810) 239-6302 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, Michigan 48823 Telephone: (517) 332-5900 E-mail: andrew@aboodlaw.com RLB COLLECTIVE: Thomas-Lawson Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Thomas-Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RLB COLLECTIVE, INC., d/b/a HAVEN SOCIETY, Case No. 8:20-cv-01212 (C.D. Cal., July 10, 2020), is brought for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy. The Defendant utilizes automated telemarketing text messages to market and advertise the Defendant's business and services, including at least 2 messages to the Plaintiff over the past year including twice on February 27, 2020. At no time did the Plaintiff provide the Plaintiff's cellular number to the Defendant through any medium, nor did the Plaintiff consent to receive such unsolicited text messages, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff has never signed-up for, and has never used, the Defendant's services, and has never had any form of business relationship with the Defendant. The Plaintiff's domicile is in Durham, North Carolina. The Defendant is a California Profit Corporation and citizen of the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Facsimile: 954-524-2822 Email: seth@epllc.com - and - Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: 305-975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com ROVER INC: Faces Newbrough Civil Rights Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rover, Inc. The case is captioned as M.K. Newbrough, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rover, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05009-NRB (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. The lawsuit alleges violation of the civil rights-related laws. Rover operates an online community for finding pet sitters.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 west 24th Street, Ste., 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com SAFETY HARBOR: Hayes Suit Seeks Quiet Title to Cemetery ------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline L. Hayes, Louis Claudio, Bruce Hadburg, Reverend Lee Hall-Perkins, Dionne Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and Whispering Souls African American Cemetery, Inc., Petitioners, v. The St. Paul Home Helping Hand Society of Safety Harbor, Florida, Safety Harbor African American Community, The Safety Harbor African American Cemetery, Respondents, Case No. 20-002883 (Fla. Cir., June 16, 2020), is an action to Quiet Title pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 65.011-65.061 over a parcel of real estate, the Safety Harbor African American Cemetery. Petitioners and the community seek a Declaratory Judgment that the St. Paul Society is a Charitable Trust so that the legal title of the cemetery can be established, permitting it to be maintained for the benefit of the community. Safety Harbor Colored Community is referenced as the grantee in a deed executed by St. Paul Society in August 1953 concerning the Cemetery. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Herbert R. Donica, Esq. DONICA LAWFIRM, P.A. 238 East Davis Boulevard, Suite 209 Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 878-9790 Facsimile: (813) 878-9746 E-mail: herb@donicalaw.com - and - T. AndrewZodrow, Esq. 1406 Westley St. Safety Harbor, FL 34695 Telephone: (727) 459-2620 e-mail: azodrow@hotmail.com SEATTLE, WA: Ansa Attorney Discusses CHAZ/CHOP Takeover Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roman T. Galas, Esq., of Ansa, reported that imagine a world where an unelected political action group commandeers a six-block area of public city space that encompasses a public park and numerous residential and commercial properties. Imagine this group then sets up barricades at borders and entry points, with armed security "sentinels" patrolling the area, restricting vehicular traffic from entering (specifically including law enforcement and first responders), and interrogating residents, workers, and delivery drivers who attempt to enter. It re-purposes public grounds by, e.g., planting makeshift gardens in a public park, erecting temporary housing units, and creating un-regulated food and medical dispensaries. Presentation of opposing political and social viewpoints is barred. Speeches, music, and fireworks are blared at all hours of the night. Trash and feces build up all over. Residents who try to take pictures are threatened with having their phone stolen. Imagine that, amidst this chaos, private business activity is curtailed, if not closed outright. Access to a physical therapy provider is blocked for its disabled clientele in violation of ADA regulations. Theft, destruction, and vandalism of property in turn run rampant, with graffiti sprayed onto nearly every private building, and quickly re-sprayed if painted over by the property owner (with threats of retaliation against the property owner). Imagine that, during this takeover, violence flares regularly. With police and first responders delayed from entering, 911 response times triple. Drugs and guns are carried openly and visibly. A garbage dumpster is stolen from a local condo development, and the condo president who attempts to retrieve the bin is physically assaulted. An auto repair shop is broken into, with the armed intruder using Purell to light a fire inside then attacking the arriving owner with a knife and a spike before being subdued but, with police barred from entering and an angry mob demanding his release, the intruder is allowed to go free. A sign language-using female is sexually assaulted, and fires run rampant. And two young men are shot in a single weekend, one fatally, and at least four more shooting victims are reported in the following days. Class Action Suits vs. City of Seattle These hardly seem the images of a dreamer's utopia. Yet two class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington allege that the events described above are exactly what took place beginning June 8, 2020, in Seattle's so-called "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" (CHAZ) or "Capitol Hill Organized Protest" (CHOP). The first, Hunter's Capital LLC, et al v. City of Seattle, No. 2:20-cv-00983-TSZ, was filed against the city on behalf of 16 businesses and individuals. The second, Bozeman et al v. Durkan, et al, No. 2:20-cv-00984-JLR, was filed by Jacob Bozeman, a solo practitioner, on behalf of himself and another man with the same last name, against the city, the mayor, the state, and the governor. Together, the suits allege that the above-described takeover occurred with the explicit approval of Seattle's city leaders, including Mayor Jenny Durkan, who alternately referred to it as "a peaceful expression" of community grief, a "gathering place for community to demand change," a "block party atmosphere," and even "the Summer of Love." The suits allege the city aided the takeover, not just by so publicly voicing approval, but actively abandoning the Seattle Police Department's East Precinct (not only emptying the building, but barring law enforcement from entering the area); allowing protesters to take possession of police barriers and, later, providing replacement concrete barriers to fortify the original wooden barriers; providing portable toilets and regular service of same; providing medical beds and supplies for a makeshift "medical tent"; blocking/re-routing vehicular traffic in a manner that perpetuated the protesters' continued dominion over the commandeered space; and regularly meeting and coordinating logistics with protest leaders. The Hunters Capital action alleges five discrete causes of action: Procedural Due Process under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (infringing on Plaintiffs' constitutional rights without notice or hearing), Nuisance under RCW 7.48.010 (interfering with Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their properties by blocked access and unreasonable noise/sanitary conditions), Substantive Due Process under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (violation of right to be protected from state-created danger), Unlawful Gift under Article VIII, Section 7 of Washington State Constitution (granting without consideration and with donative intent to favored political group the right to occupy public properties and premises to the exclusion of other members of the public), and Taking under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (depriving access to and encouraging invasion of private properties, without just compensation). The Bozeman action generally seeks: a declaratory judgment finding the defendants violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution; an injunction barring further such violations; an injunction barring the defendants from ceding control of the public geographic CHAZ/CHOP zone to any person, group, or entity to the detriment of other members of the public; and an injunction barring the defendants from abdicating their lawful police/law enforcement powers to any person/entity other than duly-elected/appointed police/law enforcement authorities. While the CHAZ/CHOP zone was dismantled by police pursuant to Mayor Durkan's executive order on July 1, both lawsuits remain pending. No answers or motions have been filed to date, and the most recent docket action in either is an entry of appearance filed by Assistant City Attorneys in the Hunters Capital action. While the injunctive relief is arguably mooted, the Hunters Capital action seeks actual damages for property damage, lost property value, and loss of business revenue. Both actions also seek to recoup the costs of filing suit. As such, we do not anticipate these legal issues falling by the wayside any time soon, and will monitor further developments. A Cautionary Tale Other American municipalities would do well to heed Seattle's cautionary tale. Portland did just that in quickly dismantling an attempt to re-create the Seattle takeover. Atlanta, on the other hand, is only now ejecting protesters from commandeered space surrounding the Wendy's site of a controversial fatal police shooting after the tragic fatal shooting of an 8-year old girl, apparently, by protesters enforcing illegal barricades. City leaders should consider not just the social and political costs of allowing (let alone enabling) any political action group to take over a public space, but also the costs of defending such actions in court. [GN] SEQUIUM ASSET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Davis Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ JASON DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case 2:20-cv-06009 (C.D. Cal., July 6, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC is a debt collection agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com SHIRE: Rochester Drug No Longer Adequate Rep for Intuniv Class -------------------------------------------------------------- Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. is no longer an adequate class representative for direct purchasers in antitrust litigation alleging that pharmaceutical companies Shire and Actavis conspired to delay the entrance of generic versions of Shire's ADHD medication Intuniv, according to a federal court ruling on July 8. RDC may have been an adequate representative initially, but once it declared bankruptcy and became a debtor-in-possession, that ceased to be the case, Judge Allison D. Burroughs decided for the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. [GN] SKIPTHEDISHES: Labor Class Suit to Move Forward in September ------------------------------------------------------------ Aisha Malik of Mobile Syrup reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit against SkipTheDishes is allowed to move forward after it was on hold pending a decision in a case regarding an Uber Eats driver. The CBC reports that the case can now move through Manitoba courts since the Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling in a similar case involving Uber Eats. A former courier for the service is arguing that SkipTheDishes avoided labour laws that cover minimum wage and other benefits by classifying its workers as independent contractors as opposed to employees. The courier is seeking class-action certification, but the case was put on hold in order to await the Supreme Court's handling of the Uber case. An Uber Eats driver arguing the same thing is also seeking class-action certification. The court ruled that couriers don't have to go through an arbitration process mandated by Uber. SkipTheDishes had changed its contract to require couriers to go through arbitration as opposed to the courts when attempting to resolve a dispute. The revised contracts also stated that any action could not be taken as part of a class action. Since the Supreme Court has made a decision regarding the Uber case, the Skip the Dishes case will go forward later this year. [GN] SOGOU INC: Frater Appeals S.D.N.Y. Orders in Luo Suit to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lead Plaintiffs Mark S. Frater, et al., and Movants Lizhen Zhang, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated June 8, 2020, and Judgment dated June 10, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled JIAJIA LUO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SOGOU INC, SOHU.COM, INC., TENCENT HOLDINGS LIMITED, XIAOCHUAN WANG, CHARLES (CHAOYANG) ZHANG, YUXIN REN, JOANNA (YANFENG) LU, BIN GAO, JOSEPH CHEN, JANICE LEE, JAMES (XIUFENG) DENG, CHI PING MARTIN LAU, DONALD J. PUGLISI, J. P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., and CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00230-LJL, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Sogou is an Internet search company, which is a subsidiary of Sohu, a Beijing-based search engine in the People's Republic of China. On November 9, 2017, Sogou declared its initial public offering of 45,000,000 American Depository Shares (ADS) at a price of US$13 per ADS and announced that its ADSs were approved to be listed on New York Stock Exchange. However, it failed to disclose that Sogou merchants where under investigation for sales of counterfeit goods; that its existing software, advertising procedures, personnel and audit procedures were insufficient to safeguard against compliance violations with governing Chinese regulations; Sogou's cost of revenues were skyrocketing primarily because of significant increases in Traffic Acquisition Cost which is its primary driver of cost of revenues as it was dealing with significant price inflation from increased competition; that it had decided to phase out non-AI-enabled hardware products, which it hoped would reduce its hardware revenues in the second half of 2018. Following this announcement, the price of Sogou ADSs fell $0.78, or 7.55%, to close at $9.55 on July 30, 2018. The appellate case is captioned as Luo v. Sogou Inc. et al., Case No. 20-2188, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Lead Plaintiffs-Appellants Mark S. Frater and Ketan Patel are represented by: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363−7500 Facsimile: (212) 363−7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com - and - Shannon Lee Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992−4523 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com Movants-Appellants Lizhen Zhang, Juean Xu, Yuehua Ding, and Maggie Xu are represented by: Jacob Alexander Goldberg, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Ste. 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600−2817 E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com - and - Jing Chen, Esq. Phillip C. Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686−1060 Facsimile: (212) 202−3827 E-mail: jchen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com - and - Shannon Lee Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992−4523 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com Defendants-Appellees Sogou Inc. and Sohu, Inc. are represented by: Nicholas Cutaia, Esq. GOULSTON & STORRS PC 885 Third Avenue, 18th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 878−6900 Facsimile: (212) 878−6911 E-mail: ncutaia@goulstonstorrs.com - and - Joshua Looney, Esq. Richard J. Rosensweig, Esq. GOULSTON & STORRS, P.C. 400 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 574−2245 Facsimile: (617) 482−1776 E-mail: jlooney@goulstonstorrs.com rrosensweig@goulstonstorrs.com SPARTAN COMPANIES: Denied Welders Overtime Pay, Hernandez Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ronnie Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Spartan Companies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00581 (D. N.M., June 16, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Spartan provides services to the oil and gas industry in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and North Dakota. Hernandez worked for Spartan as a welder. Spartan allegedly misclassified welders as independent contractors instead of as employees, thus in effect denying them compensation at time and one half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com SPEER INSURANCE: Katt Files ADA Suit in Colorado ------------------------------------------------ Speer Insurance Services, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Speer Insurance Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02053-CMA (D. Colo., July 14, 2020). Speer Insurance Services, LLC provides insurance for auto, home, motorcycle, watercraft, RV and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. Marcus & Zelman, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (732) 695-3282 Email: ari@marcuszelman.com STILLMAN PC: Clendening et al. Allege Wrongful Debt Collections --------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEE CLENDENING; and ASHLEE CLENDENING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STILLMAN, P.C. d/b/a STILLMAN LAW OFFICE, f/k/a LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL R. STILLMAN, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-11820-BAF-APP (E.D. Mich., July 6, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Stillman, P.C. is a law firm engaging in collection of debt. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Evancheck, Esq. KELLEY & EVANCHEK PC 43695 Michigan Ave. Canton, MI 48188 Telephone: (734) 397-4540 E-mail: john@kelawpc.com STOCKX LLC: Esquer Sues in N.D. Calif. Over Customer Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA ESQUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STOCKX, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-11760-MAG-APP (N.D. Cal., June 30, 2020), seeks a public injunction after StockX failed to secure and safeguard its customers' private information, including the names, shipping addresses, e-mail addresses, and passwords of those who created accounts on the StockX Web site. In August 2019, several media outlets reported that a hacker had stolen more than 6.8 million customer records from the Defendant's Web site in May 2019 (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff contends that despite knowing its records had been hacked, the Defendant failed to inform its users and instead tried to hide the fact by sending out a notification telling its users to reset their passwords, under the guise of "system updates." The Plaintiff suffered actual injury from having her Customer Data compromised and stolen as a result of the StockX data breach. The Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of California and a resident of San Jose, California. In early to mid-2019, the Plaintiff created an account with StockX, providing her email address and creating a password for login. StockX operates an online marketplace via its Web site, http://www.StockX.com/.StockX is an e-commerce platform on which consumers throughout California, can buy and sell new merchandise, including sneakers, watches, handbags and street wear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com jnassir@faruqilaw.com SWIFT RESPONSE: Young Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swift Response, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Swift Response, LLC, Swift Response Holdings LLLP, Case No. 1:20-cv-05343 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Swift Response, LLC, is an American company specializing in adhesive bonding products based in Weston, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com SYMANTEC CORP: Class in SEB Investment Securities Suit Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION and GREGORY S. CLARK, Defendants, Case No. C 18-02902 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The action stems from allegations that Defendant Symantec and its former executive officers defrauded shareholders by manipulating Symantec's financial reports to create the illusion of stronger-than-actual financial performance and outlook for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Symantec, a company that sold cybersecurity products and services, emerged as an industry leader in the 1990s. By 2016, however, the company found itself at the end of a 10-year period of disappointing financial results. In early 2016, Symantec divested Veritas Software, a major acquisition it had made in 2005, aiming to save $400 million in costs by the end of fiscal year 2018. Symantec also announced two acquisitions: Blue Coat Systems, Inc., in June 2016, and Lifelock, Inc., in November 2016. When the Blue Coat deal closed, Blue Coat's management team took control of Symantec, with Defendant Gregory Clark and now-dismissed Defendant Nicholas Noviello taking over as Symantec's CEO and CFO, respectively. everal other members of Blue Coat's top management team also assumed high-level roles at Symantec. Mark Garfield, Symantec's Chief Accounting Officer prior to Symantec's acquisition of Blue Coat, continued on in his role as Symantec's CAO. Symantec described both acquisitions as transformative, promising that cost savings and revenue growth would come. To that end, Symantec increased its revenue and income targets for executive compensation. In May 2017, Symantec filed its Forms 8-K and 10-K with the SEC announcing its quarterly results for the fourth quarter and for fiscal year 2017, its fiscal year ending March 31. Symantec's reported revenue and operating margin appeared to confirm the revenue growth and costs savings Symantec had led its investors to expect, following the Blue Coat and Lifelock acquisitions. Publicly, in a press release and earnings call, CEO Clark attributed Symantec's increased revenue to cost-saving initiatives and synergies related to the Blue Coat and LifeLock acquisitions. Behind the scenes, however, the new leadership had allegedly began inflating recognized revenue in violation of GAAP and misclassifying ordinary operating expenses as "transition costs." Despite these alleged concerns, the Defendants continued to report Symantec's strong financial performance and the success of the Blue Coat and LifeLock acquisitions throughout fiscal year 2018. Starting on May 10, 2018, however, the Defendants began to reveal the alleged fraud publicly. After market close on May 10, Symantec issued a press release announcing that its audit committee had commenced an internal investigation and had voluntarily contacted the SEC after a former employee raised unspecified concerns. The press release, which also announced Symantec's fourth quarter results for fiscal year 2018, stated the following regarding the investigation. When the market reopened on Friday, Symantec's stock plummeted by over 33%, erasing roughly $6 billion of market apitalization before the weekend. At least 15 Wall Street analysts cut their price targets by Friday morning and market commentators noted the puzzling lack of detail and Symantec's decision to completely forego the question and answer portion of the conference call. Before the markets opened Monday morning, May 14, Symantec announced that it would hold an "investor briefing call" in the afternoon to provide more information regarding the investigation. Prior to the conclusion of the investigation, individuals filed two lawsuits in the district on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated investors. An August 2018 order consolidated the two actions and appointed SEB Investment Management AB as the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated action. The Order pauses to note that up to this point, the proposed class period ran from May 19, 2017 to May 10, 2018. When the Lead Plaintiff filed the operative complaint in October 2019, however, the complaint extended the proposed class period to Aug. 2, 2018, the date of the second alleged "corrective disclosure." On Aug. 2, 2018, Symantec released its earnings for the first quarter of fiscal year 2019. Following the August 2 disclosure, Symantec's stock price dropped another 8% on August 3. Although the investigation ended in September 2018, the proposed class period ends following the August 2 disclosure. The Lead Plaintiff now seeks to certify the following class: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded Symantec common stock during the period from May 11, 2017 to Aug. 2, 2018, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. In its motion, the Plaintiff notes that its proposed class definition includes all investors who purchased Symantec common stock contemporaneously with sales made or caused by CEO Clark during the class period. In other words, the proposed class includes those with insider-trading claims under Section 20A. In opposing class certification, the Defendants contend that individual issues predominate because the Plaintiff is not entitled to the presumption of class-wide reliance under its "fraud on the market" theory and that the Plaintiff fails to provide a viable damages model. The Defendants also contend that the Plaintiff is an inadequate and atypical class representative. An order vacated the hearing in light of the national health emergency and the motion's suitability for submission on the papers. Accordingly, Judge Alsup granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and certified the quoted class. SEB Investment Management AB will serve as the Lead Plaintiff, and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP is appointed as the class counsel. The Court finds that the Plaintiff showed that the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been meet, and the Plaintiff has established that for a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), the questions of law or fact common to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Without delay, all parties were directed to submit jointly an agreed-upon form of notice. The Plaintiff along with the Defendants must also submit a joint proposal for dissemination of the notice, and the timeline for opting out of the action. The Plaintiff must bear the costs of the notice, which will include mailing by first-class mail. Furthermore, all parties are ordered to appear before Magistrate Judge Ryu for the September 14 settlement conference. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 8, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/C0IPF2 from Leagle.com. TELEDYNE DEFENSE: George Alleges Inaccurate Wage Statements ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, JAMEEL GEORGE, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TELEDYNE DEFENSE ELECTRONICS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV26198 (Cal. Sup. Ct., July 10, 2020) challenges Defendants' alleged systemic illegal employment practices in violations of the California Labor Code and the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly non-exempt employee from in or around June 2017 to on or about April 11, 2020. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued them wage statements in the final pay period which failed to identify all applicable hourly rates used to compute the overtime wages in violation of Labor Code section 226(a)(9). Also, the wage statements failed to identify the correct inclusive dates of the pay period in violation of Labor Code section 226(a)(6). Moreover, the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) has not responded to Plaintiff's written notice sent on or about May 8, 2020 concerning Defendants' violations of the California Labor & Workforce Development agency (LWDA). Teledyne Defense Electronics, LLC offers engineering solutions to Defense, Space and Commercial sectors worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen M. Agnew, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 Emails: lwlee@diversitylaw.com kagnew@diversitylaw.com nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com THREE SIXTY GROUP: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Guglielmo Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THREE SIXTY GROUP, L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-05371-JPO (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site, http://www.faoschwarz.com/and, therefore, denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the complaint. Because the Defendant's Web site is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his computer. The Defendant is a toys, plush, and gifts company that owns and operates the Web site that offers features, which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com TSG ENTERPRISES: Begg Sues in N.D. California Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TSG Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled Bruce Begg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TSG Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-04633-NC (N.D. Cal., July 12, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. TSG Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Pure Hockey, retails sporting equipment. The Company offers hokey, sporting equipment, parts, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (323) 979-2063 Fax: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE: MARRAS 46 LLC Files Suit in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twin City Fire Insurance Company. The case is styled as MARRAS 46 LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-08886-SRC-CLW (D. N.J., July 14, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed over Breach of Insurance Contract. Twin City Fire Insurance Company offers property and casualty insurance products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Barry, Esq. Locks Law Firm LLC 801 N. Kings Highway Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Tel: (856) 663-8200 Fax: (856) 661-8400 Email: jbarry@lockslaw.com UNITED STATES OIL FUND: Faces Wang Securities Suit in N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Momo Wang, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated investors v. UNITED STATES OIL FUND, LP, UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUNDS LLC, JOHN P. LOVE, STUART P. CRUMBAUGH, NICHOLAS D. GERBER, ANDREW F NGIM, ROBERT L. NGUYEN, PETER M. ROBINSON, GORDON L. ELLIS, MALCOLM R. FOBES III, ABN AMRO, BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., CITADEL SECURITIES LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES USA LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY, JP MORGAN SECURITIES INC., MERRILL LYNCH PROFESSIONAL CLEARING CORP., MORGAN STANLEY & COMPANY INC., NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SG AMERICAS SECURITIES LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, and VIRTU FINANCIAL BD LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-04596 (N.D. Cal., July 10, 2020), is brought on behalf of all persons, who purchased Fund shares pursuant to or otherwise traceable to the Fund's March 19, 2020 registration statement, as amended, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 as a result of the Defendants' material misrepresentations in and omissions from the Registration Statement. USO is an exchange traded fund ("ETF") purportedly designed to track the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma. Because retail investors are generally not equipped to buy and sell barrels of oil or authorized to trade oil futures, ETFs, such as USO, provide one of the primary means that such investors can gain exposure to fluctuations in oil prices. USO stated that it would achieve its investment objective by investing substantially all of its portfolio assets in the near month WTI futures contract. However, unbeknownst to investors, extraordinary market conditions in early 2020 made USO's purported investment objective and strategy unfeasible, the Plaintiff contends. Oil demand fell precipitously as governments imposed lockdowns and businesses halted operations in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The Defendants, as the creators, issuers, operators, and/or underwriters of the largest oil-related ETF in existence and active market-making players in the complex commodities and futures markets that determined the Fund's performance, should have known about the negative consequences to the Fund as a result of these converging adverse events, the Plaintiff says. However, rather than disclose the known impacts and risks to the Fund as a result of these exceptional threats, the Defendants instead conducted a massive offering of USO shares, ultimately selling billions of dollars' worth of USO shares to the market, the Plaintiff asserts. He adds that the offering exacerbated the undisclosed risks to the Fund by magnifying trading inefficiencies and causing USO to approach position and accountability limits as a result of the Fund's massive positions in the WTI futures market. In the days that followed, USO quickly deteriorated. Ultimately, the Fund suffered billions of dollars in losses and was forced to abandon its investment strategy. Through a series of rapid-fire investment overhauls, USO transformed from the passive ETF designed to track spot oil prices that Defendants had pitched to investors to an almost unrecognizable actively managed fund struggling to avoid a total implosion. In April and May 2020, USO belatedly acknowledged the extreme threats and adverse impacts that the Fund had been experiencing at the time of the March offering, but which defendants had failed to disclose to investors. As a result of Defendants' material misrepresentations in and omissions from the Registration Statement, the Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered billions of dollars in losses, says the complaint. Plaintiff Momo Wang purchased USO shares pursuant to or otherwise traceable to the Registration Statement. United States Oil Fund, LP, is a commodity pool operator that provides investment exposure to oil markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank J. Johnson, Esq. Brett M. Middleton, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1400 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 255-1856 Email: frankj@johnsonfistel.com brettm@johnsonfistel.com UNITED STATES: TRO Motion in Martinez-Brooks Suit Partly Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DIANTHE MARTINEZ-BROOKS et al., Plaintiffs, v. D. EASTER & MICHAEL CARVAJAL, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00569 (MPS) (D. Conn.), Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (i) denied the Respondents' motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the motion for temporary restraining order. On March 27, 2020, Congress gave federal prison officials an extraordinary tool to confront the extraordinary threat posed by the novel coronavirus within prison walls: the authority to transfer any federal inmate from prison to confinement in his or her home. A week later, the Attorney General of the United States urged the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to "maximize" the use of that tool as soon as possible, stating in an April 3 memorandum that given the speed with which the disease has spread through the general public, and the Bureau's profound obligation to protect the health and safety of all inmates, it is clear that time is of the essence. The Attorney General's memo was triggered by an outbreak of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, at the Danbury Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI Danbury"), a low security prison in Danbury, Connecticut, and two other federal prisons; the memo directed the BOP to immediately review all inmates who have COVID-19 risk factors for potential placement in home confinement, "starting with inmates incarcerated at FCI Danbury and the other two facilities. On April 27, the inmates ("Petitioners") filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 against the Warden of FCI Danbury and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("Respondents"). They sought to represent a class consisting of all inmates in the men's prison and the two women's prisons making up FCI Danbury, as well as a "medically vulnerable" subclass consisting of those inmates with COVID-19 risk factors. They alleged that the only effective way to minimize the potential devastation from COVID-19 in BOP facilities generally and FCI Danbury in particular is to downsize immediately the incarcerated population and, for the prisoners who remain at the institution, to undertake aggressively the detection, prevention, and treatment measures that public health and medical experts have recommended, including effective social distancing. They further alleged that the Respondents were violating the Eighth Amendment by failing to use the BOP's available statutory authority to reduce the population of FCI Danbury to mitigate the severe risk posed by COVID-19, and by failing to take adequate safety measures to protect inmates during the outbreak. The Petition seeks a wide range of relief, including an order requiring Respondents to release from custody or to home confinement members of the medically vulnerable Subclass and requiring Respondents to provide medically adequate social distancing and health care and sanitation for members of the Class who remain. On April 30, the Petitioners filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, seeking an order requiring the Respondents to enlarge [i.e., transfer] to home confinement all women currently housed in the satellite camp at FCI Danbury, enlarge to home confinement all members of the medically vulnerable Subclass, and implement appropriate measures to maximize social distancing and improve hygiene" for the remaining inmates or transfer them to safer BOP facilities. Together with their Petition and motion, Petitioners filed declarations from inmates housed at each of the three prisons within FCI Danbury, as well as declarations from experts and other evidence. On May 5, the Respondents filed a joint motion to dismiss the habeas petition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and an opposition to the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The Respondents argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition, that it failed state a claim, and that the Petitioners' motion should be denied. With regard to jurisdiction, the Respondents argued, among other things, that the Court was prohibited from entertaining the Petitioners' requests for "enlargement", because doing so would exceed the limited authority of district courts to modify sentences once they are imposed; that the Prison Litigation Reform Act, foreclosed such relief; and that the Petitioners had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Respondents also submitted a lengthy declaration by the Warden and defended her efforts to combat the COVID-19 crisis on the merits, detailing safety measures the Warden had imposed at FCI Danbury, including enhanced sanitation, quarantine of inmates, isolation of groups of inmates, the provision of masks and other protective equipment to inmates and staff, and delivery of food and programming directly to the living units. Finally, the Respondents argued that this habeas petition cannot be maintained as a class action. The Court held oral argument on May 6, 2020. The Respondents have filed both a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and a response to the Petitioners motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Judge Shea denies the Rule 12(b)(1) motion because he finds that the Warden's jurisdictional challenges lack merit; he grants in part and denies in part the motion for temporary restraining order and orders expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing to adjudicate the motion for preliminary injunction; and he denies the Rule 12(b)(6) motion because he finds that the Petition states a claim under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. In light of the foregoing, Judge Shea granted in part and denies in part the Petitioners' motion for temporary restraining order. The temporary restraining order is aimed at accelerating the process for evaluating inmates for home confinement and compassionate release, and focusing that process on achieving a "reasonable" balance between the risks to inmate safety and the risks to public safety. Without delay, Respondent Warden will file on the docket, under seal, a list of medically vulnerable inmates at Danbury FCI, consisting, more specifically, of the following: All individuals in custody at FCI Danbury who are aged 65 or over and/or who have any of the following conditions specifically identified by the United States Centers for Disease Control as putting them at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19: (a) chronic lung disease including moderate to severe asthma, COPD, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and/or cystic fibrosis; (b) immunocompromised status, including status as a transplant recipient, on chemotherapy, HIV positive, prolonged use of corticosteroids, using immunosuppressive medication, and/or having an immune deficiency; (c) severe obesity (BMI of 40 or higher); (d) diabetes mellitus Type I or Type II, (e) gestational diabetes mellitus; (f) chronic kidney disease on dialysis; (g) chronic liver diseases, cirrhosis; and/or (g) serious heart conditions, including congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, congenital heart disease, cardiomyopathy, and/or pulmonary hypertension. Without delay, the counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondents will confer with each other about how to identify promptly the inmates who fit the criteria listed, including, if feasible, through the use of ICD codes, as discussed during the recent teleconference. The list referred to will include the identity of the inmate, the inmate's sentencing court, and the case number of the inmate's underlying criminal conviction but will not include information about the specific medical condition suffered by each inmat. It will be organized by facility within Danbury FCI (i.e., one list for the men's facility, one list for the women's satellite prison, and one list for the women's camp). The list will indicate, as to each inmate, whether that inmate (a) has submitted a request for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(1)(A), and (b) has been reviewed for home confinement since March 26, 2020, and if so, whether the inmate has been designated for home confinement. If compiling the information described will significantly delay the creation and filing of a list setting forth just the information described, then the Respondents may initially, within three days of the Order, file a list including only the information set forth, and then, within seven days of the Order, file a second version of the list including all of the information described. The Respondent will provide the list to the Petitioners' counsel, and the list will be marked Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only and be treated accordingly under the Protective Order entered in the case. The Respondent will file on the docket with the list a declaration setting forth the process used to identify those persons described, including a description of the databases searched. Without delay, the Respondent shall: a. Finalize and implement a process that makes full and speedy use of the home confinement authority under 18 U.S.C. Section 3624(b) and the CARES Act and, as directed by the Attorney General's April 3, 2020 Memorandum, immediately maximizes appropriate transfers to home confinement for all appropriate inmates held at FCI Danbury. b. File a statement on the docket explaining why the Court should not also require the review process described to eliminate or modify the requirements that the PATTERN risk score be MIN and that the Mental Health Care Level be less than IV. c. Publish to inmates the factors to be considered in the revised home confinement review process developed by the Warden in accordance with the Order. Without delay, the Respondent shall: a. Provide written notice of either (a) a referral of the matter in writing with recommendation of approval of the request, or (b) a denial of the request, together with the appropriate appeal form, to each inmate described who has made a written request for compassionate release based on COVID-19 under 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(1)(A) but has not yet received a decision. b. Finalize and implement a process whereby each inmate described who makes a written request for compassionate release based on COVID-19 receives notice of either the referral of their request, with a recommendation of approval, or its denial, with the appropriate appeal form, within deven days of the date the request is received by a member of the Danbury FCI staff. c. File a statement on the docket explaining whether and how the criteria in the BOP's Program Statement governing compassionate release have been updated to take account of the COVID-19 crisis and, if they have not been, showing cause why the Court should not require the Warden to promulgate revised compassionate release criteria for use at FCI Danbury that take full and appropriate account of the threat posed by COVID-19 to medically vulnerable inmates. Within 13 days of the Order, as to each person described, the Respondent Warden will complete the home confinement review process described and will either (a) approve such person for home confinement and (i) place him or her on home confinement or (ii) place him or her in quarantine within the facility for 14 days before placing him or her on home confinement, or (b) deny such person home confinement. Within 13 days of the Order, the Respondent Warden will provide to the Court (under seal) an individualized explanation for each denial of home confinement as to an inmate described, and will show cause why each such inmate should not be transferred to another facility within the BOP where adequate social distancing is possible. Within 13 days of the Order, the Respondent will file a status report describing her efforts to comply with the Order. A full-text copy of the District Court's May 12, 2020 Ruling is available at https://is.gd/IDAf6b from Leagle.com. US BANK: Kunzer Appeals D. Minn. Ruling in Trust Suit to 8th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Kenneth R. Kunzer filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled Kenneth Kunzer v. Lisa Hiniker, et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-00882-JRT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Lisa A. Hiniker is sued as an individual predicate actor in schemes violating federal laws providing that fraud and embezzlement are malum in se offenses, and employee of U.S. Bank and as Trustee of Trust A & B under the Last Will and Testament of Albert P. Herschler. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises from the Defendants' violations of the Racketeering and Corrupt Practices Act. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated beneficiaries, alleges that the Defendants violate the terms of Albert P. Herschler's Codicil by refusing to notify the survivors/heirs of Helen A. Herschler that they are beneficiaries of Albert P. Herschler's trusts, referred to as Trust A and Trust B. The Plaintiff claims that U.S. Bank concealed the true beneficiaries of Trust B and made fraudulent representations to the court about the distribution of the assets of Trust A with the help of the law firm of Meier, Kennedy and Quinn and its attorneys, together with the remaining Defendants, to execute an artifice and/or scheme to defraud the heirs of the Herschler Estate in order to obtain monies for their own use and conversion. The appellate case is captioned as Kenneth Kunzer v. Lisa Hiniker, et al., Case No. 20-2386, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant Kenneth R. Kunzer, of Woodbury, Minnessota, appears pro se.[BN] Defendants-Appellees Robins Kaplan LLP, An enterprise affecting interstate commerce, and 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) association-in-fact; Denise S. Rahne, Esq., Individually and employee of Robins Kaplin; and Ena M. Kovacevic, Esq., Individually and employee of Robins Kaplin, are represented by: Richard Bruce Allyn, Esq. ROBINS & KAPLAN 2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 349-8571 E-mail: rallyn@robinskaplan.com UTGR INC: Faces Rose Suit Alleging Discrimination and Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lia Rose f/k/a Taner Munsif, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees v. UTGR, INC. d/b/a TWIN RIVER CASINO, alias, Case No. 1:20-cv-00301 (D.R.I., July 10, 2020), arises out of the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Rhode Island Parental and Family Medical Leave Act, and the Rhode Island Whistleblower Protection Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges retaliation under the FLSA and RIPWA for the Defendants' issuing written warnings for conduct that was neither fairly attributed to the Plaintiff nor violations of the Defendants' policies and for punishing the Plaintiff by denying her raises during annual performance reviews and prohibiting her from applying for promotions due to those baseless written warnings following her initiation and participation in a prior FLSA lawsuit. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges interference, discrimination, and retaliation under the FMLA and RIPFMLA for issuing disciplinary points for taking intermittent leave to attend to her mother's serious medical conditions, and subsequently suspending and terminating the Plaintiff pursuant to those deliberate and erroneously issued disciplinary points. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant on May 22, 2013, as a full-time Floor Supervisor. UTGR, doing business as Twin River Casino, alias, is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and doing business in the State of Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Sinapi, Esq. Chloe A. Davis, Esq. SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD. 2374 Post Road Suite 201 Warwick, RI 02886 Phone: (401) 739-9690 Fax: (401) 739-9490 Email: ras@sinapilaw.com VERDE ENERGY: Faces Spiesman Suit Over Unfair Pricing Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Joanna Spiesman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. VERDE ENERGY USA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01543-SO (N.D. Ohio, July 13, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive, bad-faith, unconscionable and unfair pricing practices that have caused thousands of consumers to pay considerably more for electricity than they should have. Deregulation changed the way electricity is sold to consumers. When utility companies were the sole players in the market, they supplied and distributed electricity to consumers and set the retail rates. Now, consumers can choose from an array of electricity suppliers other than their local utility company. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous electricity suppliers have taken advantage of deregulation. Certain suppliers exploit the lack of regulatory oversight by engaging in deceptive marketing practices and price gouging to profiteer at the expense of unsuspecting consumers. The Defendant is one such supplier, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant purchases electricity supply from the wholesale market and resells that electricity to retail consumers. The Defendant does not produce electricity and it does not distribute it to consumers. In order to lure consumers into purchasing its electricity supply, the Defendant promises to offer variable rates that will vary based on market conditions. In reality, the Defendant's variable rates are substantially higher than those otherwise available in the electricity market, and do not reflect wholesale costs or market conditions, the Plaintiff contends. As a result, unsuspecting consumers have been fleeced out of millions of dollars in exorbitant charges for electricity, says the complaint. Plaintiff Ms. Spiesman signed up for electricity supply with Verde in July 2016. Verde Energy USA, Inc., is a participant in the retail electricity market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William F. Cash III, Esq. Matthew D. Schultz, Esq. Brenton J. Goodman, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: 850-435-7059 Email: bcash@levinlaw.com mschultz@levinlaw.com bgoodman@levinlaw.com - and - D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone 914-298-3290 Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com VERMONT: Class Certification in Mullinnex Prisoners Suit Flipped ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Harold Eaton, Jr. of the Supreme Court of Vermont reversed the trial court's decision to certify the class in the case, Patrick Mullinnex et al., v. Lisa Menard et al, Case No. 2019-180 (Vt.). Defendants Michael Touchette and Centurion Healthcare bring the interlocutory appeal from the trial court's certification of a class of Plaintiffs in a Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75 action. The class certified is comprised of persons in the custody of the Vermont Department of Corrections ("DOC"), each of whom suffers from opioid-use disorder and alleges that te Defendants' medication-assisted treatment ("MAT") program does not meet prevailing medical standards of care as required by Vermont law. Pursuant to 28 V.S.A. Section 801(a), the DOC must provide health care for inmates in accordance with the prevailing medical standards. In 2017, the Legislature added a provision requiring that: (1) inmates receiving MAT prior to entering a correctional facility be continued in that treatment so long as medically necessary; (2) inmates who screen positive for opioid-use disorder while incarcerated may elect to receive MAT if it is deemed medically necessary; and (3) inmates who so elect will be authorized to receive the medication as soon as possible and for as long as medically necessary. The Plaintiffs allege that the MAT program established by the Defendants following the amendments to Sections 801 and 801b does not meet prevailing medical standards of care. An inmate who believes he or she is not receiving medical care comporting with the requirements of Sections 801 or 801b may seek redress through the DOC's grievance process. The DOC has fulfilled its legislative directive to establish procedures to review the grievances of inmates. The record reveals that the instant proceeding finds its inception in a DOC grievance form submitted by Plaintiff Patrick Mullinnex on Sept. 20, 2018, following an informal complaint to "medical" the day before. Therein, Mullinnex alleged that, although he had "been approved for MAT," he would not be induced until 30 days prior to his release from the facility despite having a medical need now for MAT and a desire to get help with his addiction and be induced. At some point during the following month, Mullinnex appealed the local response to his grievance to the corrections executive. Finally, Mullinnex filed an appeal to the Commissioner indicating his dissatisfaction with a grievance response from the corrections executive, which Mullinnex indicated was dated Oct. 30, 2018. Although the form providing for an appeal to the Commissioner contained a line designated for the date the appeal was submitted, this line was left blank. However, the form was filed with the civil division of the superior court on Nov. 2, 2018, together with Mullinnex's request for emergency injunctive relief naming "Lisa Menard et al." as the Defendants. Although the court received Mullinnex's filing several days later, he signed and dated it on October 30. Given the timing, it is clear that Mullinnex filed his administrative appeal to the Commissioner and his civil action contemporaneously. Several days later, an attorney from the Prisoners' Rights Office entered an appearance on Mullinnex's behalf in the civil case. The Defendants then moved to dismiss the case as moot, indicating that Mullinnex had been prescribed MAT and began receiving it on Nov. 7, 2018. The trial court declined to dismiss, instead directing Mullinnex to file an amended petition. Mullinnex accordingly filed an amended petition, this time through the counsel, and joined as named Plaintiffs John Jarvis, Shawn Gagnon, and Gregory Paradi s, "on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated." In the amended petition, Michael Touchette and "Centurion Healthcare" were named as Defendants. The amended petition was accompanied by a motion to maintain a class action on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging the existence of three questions of law and fact common to the putative class. The trial court issued a decision in which it held that both venue and subject-matter jurisdiction were proper. It held that the putative class had satisfied the exhaustion requirements through Mullinnex's efforts. It then noted that it could not yet determine whether the Plaintiffs met the prerequisites for the class certification and set the matter for oral argument. Following the hearing, the trial court issued another ruling on April 26, 2019, certifying the class as to issues with the MAT induction process and disciplinary actions taken against inmates who divert their MAT medication, but declining to certify the class as to the legal-status question. Defendants then brought the interlocutory appeal. Because the vicarious-exhaustion doctrine applies only where one or more class members has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to each claim raised by the class, the appellate court must first consider whether the trial court was correct in concluding that Mullinnex had done so. The Plaintiffs contend that the Supreme Court cannot now take up the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction because: (1) the Defendants did not timely appeal from the trial court's decision not to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) pursuant to Rule 23(f), the only issue the Supremem Court may consider in relation to this interlocutory appeal is the merits of class certification; and (3) the Defendants bore the burden of showing failure to exhaust, and did not do so. The Defendants, the former Commissioner of the DOC and its contract healthcare provider, argue that the trial court erred both in finding that Plaintiff Mullinnex exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit and in adopting the vicarious-exhaustion doctrine favored by several federal circuits in order to conclude that Mullinnex's grievances satisfied the exhaustion requirement on behalf of the entire class. They also contend that the trial court's decision to certify the class was in error because plaintiffs did not meet Rule 23's numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy-of-representation requirements. On review, the Supreme Court concludes that the trial court abused its discretion in determining, on the record before it, that Mullinnex exhausted his administrative remedies. As a result, the threshold requirement of the vicarious-exhaustion doctrine -- exhaustion by at least one member of the class -- is unmet. Therefore, the question of whether the doctrine is appropriately applied in the jurisdiction is not properly before the Court. And because he determines that the courts are thus without subject-matter jurisdiction, the Supreme Court does not reach the Defendants' challenges to the merits of the trial court's class certification. The Supreme Court reversed the class certification ruling. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's May 8, 2020 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/KPa9XQ from Leagle.com. Matthew Valerio, Defender General, and Kelly Green, Prisoners' Rights Office, Montpelier, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Stephen J. Soule -- SSoule@pfclaw.com -- and Pamela L.P. Eaton -- PEaton@PFClaw.com -- of Paul Frank + Collins P.C., Burlington, and Michael Bentley and Molly Walker of Bradly Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Jackson, Mississippi, for Defendants-Appellants. VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Potter Sues Over 22% Share Price Decline ----------------------------------------------------------------- ISAIAH POTTER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TED WHITE, and BRIAN DAVIS, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03447 (E.D. Pa., July 14, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Verrica securities between September 16, 2019 and June 29, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, on June 29, 2020, Verrica disclosed receipt of a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum. The letter identified certain deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements. Moreover, according to the Company, the FDA's information requests have included "specific request related to a potential safety issue with the applicator that could arise if the instructions for use were not properly followed." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.06, or nearly 22%, to close at $11.01 per share on June 30, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint asserts that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's proprietary applicator used for VP-102 posed certain safety risks if the instructions were not properly followed; (2) that, as a result, Verrica would incorporate certain user features to mitigate the safety risk; (3) that the addition of the user feature would require additional testing for stability supportive data; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, regulatory approval for VP-102 was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as a clinical-stage medical dermatology company based in West Chester, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 VOLT MANAGEMENT: Faces McCain Employment Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volt Management Corp., et al. The case is captioned as Sedrick McCain, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volt Management Corp., a Delaware Corporation; Pegatron Technology Service, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Volt Information Sciences, Inc., a New York Corporation; Volt Workforce Solutions; and Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2020-00281278-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 30, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws. Volt Management provides recruitment and staffing services. The Company offers consulting, direct hire, temporary staffing, training, direct placement, contract employees, and payroll services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin Sullivan, Esq. Laura M. Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1180 S Beverly Dr., Ste. 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035-1158 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: ms@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com WALMART INC: First Amended Complaint Filed in Castro Suit --------------------------------------------------------- A first amended complaint has been filed in the case, MARTHA CASTRO, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WALMART INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-00928-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal.). In a May 8, 2020 Order available at https://is.gd/Mt2ezC from Leagle.com, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint by May 22, 2020. The putative class action complaint was originally filed on March 24, 2020 in Placer County Superior Court (Case No. SCV0044650). On May 6, 2020, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453, and 1711 in the Eastern District of California. Walmart has filed a Motion to Dismiss in early June 2020. The matter is to be heard on July 28, 2020. Paloma P. Peracchio -- paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Los Angeles, CA. Mitchell A. Wrosch -- mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Costa Mesa, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Walmart Inc. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP, Marcus J. Bradley -- mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com -- Kiley L. Grombacher -- kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com -- Lirit King -- lking@bradleygrombacher.com -- Attorneys for Plaintiff Martha Castro. WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Bleachtech Suit in Maryland Circuit Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WASTE MANAGEMENT OF VIRGINIA, INC. The case is styled as Bleachtech LLC, Aliases: Business: Itself and all Others Similarly Situated v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF VIRGINIA, INC., Case No. C-13-CV-20-000530 (Md. Cir., Howard Cty., July 10, 2020). The case type is stated as "Contract-Breach." WASTE MANAGEMENT OF VIRGINIA, INC., is a provider of comprehensive waste management in North America, offering services that range from collection and disposal to recycling and renewable energy generation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean Evelyn Lewis, Esq. James P. Ulwick, Esq. KRAMA & GRAHAM, P.A. One South Street, Suite 2600 Baltimore, MD 21202 WEBER COUNTY, UT: Hobbs Files Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arbon, et al. The case is styled as Taylor William Hobbs, Antonio Velasquez, Juan Sandoval-Pasos, Jackson Stuart Tamowski Patton, Gregorio Ramirez Frias, Zachary Robert Babcock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ryan Arbon, Weber County Sheriff; Matt Harris United States Marshal for the District of Utah; Donald W. Washington, Director of the United States Marshal Service, Case No. 1:20-cv-00085-DBB (D. Utah, July 10, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Ryan Arbon is the current Sheriff of Weber County, Utah.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: Benjamin C. McMurray, Esq. Emily A. Stirba, Esq. FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER DISTRICT OF UTAH 46 W Broadway, Ste. 110 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 524-4010 Email: benji_mcmurray@fd.org emily_stirba@fd.org The Respondents are represented by: David F. Backman, Esq. US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 111 S. Main St., Ste. 1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2176 Phone: (801) 524-5682 Email: david.backman@usdoj.gov WELLBRIDGE CLUB: Katt Alleges Violation of ADA in Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------- Wellbridge Club Management, L.L.C. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wellbridge Club Management, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02054-MEH (D. Colo., July 14, 2020). Wellbridge Club Management LLC provides fitness management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. Marcus & Zelman, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (732) 695-3282 Email: ari@marcuszelman.com WELLS FARGO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 3 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the upcoming August 3, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) investors who purchased securities between April 5, 2020 and May 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Wells Fargo investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/wells-fargo-company/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On April 19, 2020, after at least one lawsuit was filed against the Company, reports surfaced that Wells Fargo may have unfairly distributed government-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"). On this news the Company's share price fell $1.54, or over 5%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $26.84 per share on April 21, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Finally, on May 5, 2020, the Company revealed that "it has . . . received formal and informal inquiries from federal and state governmental agencies regarding its offering of PPP loans." On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.74, or over 6%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $25.61 per share on May 6, 2020, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly allocate government-backed loans under the PPP, and/or had inadequate controls in place to prevent such misallocation; (2) that the foregoing foreseeably increased the Company's litigation risk with respect to PPP allocation, as well as increased regulatory scrutiny and/or potential enforcement actions; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Wells Fargo securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 3, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Contact: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/[GN] WELLS FARGO: Pension Fund Sues Over Misleading SEC Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION & RETIREMENT SECURITY FUNDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, CHARLES W. SCHARF, C. ALLEN PARKER, TIMOTHY J. SLOAN, and JOHN R. SHREWSBERRY, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04674 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements about Wells Fargo's business, operations, and risk and compliance policies and procedures in order to assure the investing public that the company was developing and implementing its reform efforts in compliance with the Federal Reserve's Consent Orders. Under the said orders, the Federal Reserve restricted Wells Fargo's total asset growth until the company improves its governance and risk controls. The statements released by the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Wells Fargo's plans to enhance oversight and governance, improve compliance and operational risk management, and remediate harmed customers were incomplete and inadequate to prevent future consumer harms; (ii) therefore, Wells Fargo was not in compliance with the Consent Orders; (iii) as a result of Wells Fargo's extended noncompliance with the Consent Orders, the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) threatened to impose additional supervisory and/or enforcement actions and penalties; and, (iv) additionally, Wells Fargo's remedial measures and operational and compliance risk management remained inadequate to prevent future consumer abuses. The Plaintiff and Class members suffered financial losses and damages as they purchased Wells Fargo common stock at artificially inflated prices due to the Defendants' omissions and misrepresentations. Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds is a provider of pension funds for retired members of the Steamfitters Local 449, a union located in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial services company with its corporate headquarters and principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter E. Borkon, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 E-mail: pborkon@bfalaw.com - and - Javier Bleichmar, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Nicholas J. Dennany, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 7 Times Square, 27th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com nkulesa@bfalaw.com ndennany@bfalaw.com WIRECARD AG: Frank R. Cruz Announces Filing of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Wirecard AG (OTC: WCAGY, WRCDF) securities between August 17, 2015 and June 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Wirecard investors have until September 8, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/wirecard-ag/ to participate. On June 18, 2020, the Company announced the need to further delay publication of its financial results and revealed that about EUR1.9 billion ($2.1 billion) in cash had gone missing. The Company also warned that loans up to EUR2 billion could be terminated. Additionally, the Company stated that Ernst & Young was unable to confirm the location of the cash in certain trust accounts and there was evidence that "spurious balance confirmations" had been provided. On this news, the Company's share price fell $69.74, or over 69%, to close at $29.90 per share on June 18, 2020. On June 23, 2020, CNN reported that Wirecard's former CEO, Markus Braun, was arrested "after a $2.1 billion hole exploded in [Wirecard's] accounts." The article further stated that "Munich prosecutors confirmed that Braun, Wirecard's former CEO, was arrested on suspicion of having inflated the digital payment company's balance sheet and sales through fake transactions in order to make it more attractive to investors and customers." On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.85, or over 34%, to close at $11.41 on June 23, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Wirecard overstated its cash balances during the Class Period, falsely claiming €1.9 billion of cash in a trust account that was missing; (2) that Wirecard overstated its financial results during the Class Period, including revenue and EBITDA; (3) that Wirecard did not have adequate risk management or countermeasures; (4) that EY failed to audit Wirecard in accordance with applicable auditing principles; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about Wirecard's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased Wirecard securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September 8, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Wirecard securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Contact: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz Tel: 310-914-5007 E-maiL: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com Web site: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com/[GN] WIRECARD AG: Hagens Berman Intends to File Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman, who on May 6, 2019 was appointed Lead Counsel in the securities class action brought on behalf of investors in Wirecard American Depository Shares (ADS) before Hon. Fernando M. Olguin, DelPoggetto v. Wirecard AG et al., 2:19-cv-00986-FMO-SK (C.D. Cal.), notifies investors in Wirecard ADS purchased in the United States with tickers WCAGY or WRCDF, that it will be filing an amended complaint on Aug. 14, 2020, as directed by the court, to include additional disclosures related to the original and amended complaints. The amended complaint will expand the alleged fraudulent period to end June 24, 2020 or shortly thereafter and name the company's auditor, Ernst & Young, as an additional defendant. The amendments will include the recent events, including ex-Wirecard CEO Markus Braun's reported arrest and the widening criminal probes amid the disclosed $2.1 billion missing from the company's balance sheet. Lead counsel may add further parties and amendments. Hagens Berman urges investors in Wirecard securities traded in the United States, and persons with knowledge of the alleged fraud or who could otherwise further assist with the investigation to contact the firm: WRCDF@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Lead Counsel's & Lead Plaintiff's Pending Wirecard (WCAGY; WRCDF) Securities Fraud Class Action: The pending securities fraud case concerns Defendants' deliberate use of improper accounting designed to inflate sales and profits. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly affirmed the effectiveness of Wirecard's internal controls and processes for financial reporting. In truth, Defendants were fabricating financial results by, among other things, inflating receivables. The truth emerged through a series of exposé articles published by the Financial Times beginning on Jan. 30, 2019, revealing an elaborate accounting fraud orchestrated at the highest levels of Wirecard. On May 6, 2019, the Court appointed an individual Wirecard investor Lead Plaintiff for the Class and Hagens Berman as Lead Counsel. On Feb. 14, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a first amended class action complaint. Since this time, revelations about the full extent of the alleged accounting fraud continued and became worse. On June 18, 2020, Wirecard disclosed that its external auditor was unable to confirm the existence of $2.1 billion in cash balances on trust accounts. Moreover, Wirecard warned that a failure to provide certified annual and consolidated financial statements by June 19, 2020 would allow appx. $2 billion worth of loans to be terminated. The scandal intensified when it was reported Markus Braun, the CEO who left the company on June 19, was arrested in Germany, accused of inflating the company's balance sheet. Altogether, this news has sent the price of Wirecard securities traded in the United States crashing by over 80%. The court has granted Lead Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on Aug. 14, 2020, which will expand the alleged fraudulent period to cover recent stock drops caused by the revelation of Wirecard's financial fraud, including the company's June disclosures, the recent arrest of former CEO Markus Braun and the apparent reckless audit failures of Ernst & Young (Germany). "Wirecard has long lied about its finances and almost fooled investors that information to the contrary was false. We are focusing our investigation on who knew what and when, including their accountants," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. For more information about the case, visit: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/WRCDF About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. Contact: Reed Kathrein, 510-725-3000 [GN] WIRECARD AG: Rosen Announces Filing of Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Wirecard AG (OTC: WCAGY, WRCDF) between August 17, 2015 and June 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wirecard investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Wirecard class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1880.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants, including the Company's auditor, throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Wirecard overstated its cash balances during the Class Period, falsely claiming EUR1.9 billion; (2) Wirecard overstated its financial results, including revenue and EBITDA; (3) Wirecard did not have adequate risk management or countermeasures; (4) Wirecard's auditor failed to audit the Company in accordance with applicable auditing principles; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about Wirecard's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 8, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1880.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/[GN] XAVIER UNIVERSITY: Miranda Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ximena Miranda, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. XAVIER UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00539-TSB (S.D. Ohio, July 10, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to seek reimbursement of tuition and fees, and for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel because the Plaintiff did not receive the full value of the services paid for and did not receive the benefits of in-person instruction. The Defendant's College of Nursing Accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing ("ABSN") curriculum contains three key parallel learning components: online classes, lab simulation, and actual clinical training. These parallel components are set up to complement each other as each goes from basic to more advanced. Put another way, a student completing only one or two of the parallel components misses crucial nursing education. For such comprehensive training, the Plaintiff paid approximately $13,500 per semester, in addition to a variety of fees, including student activity fees and professional liability insurance, for the onsite curriculum. In March 2020, Xavier stopped providing its onsite curriculum and switched to a fully remote learning experience that involves no hands-on training. While students enrolled and paid Xavier for a comprehensive academic experience, Xavier instead offers the Plaintiff something far less: a limited online experience presented by Google or Zoom, devoid of face-to-face faculty and peer interaction, separated from program resources, and barred from facilities vital to study, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff did not bargain for such an experience. Despite no longer providing the important "onsite curriculum" that students are promised, Xavier did not reduce its tuition. In fact, starting in May 2020, Xavier increased tuition for ABSN students. The Plaintiff contends that Xavier's actions have financially damaged her. Moreover, by switching to online in lieu of onsite courses, while increasing tuition costs for the summer semester, Xavier is being unjustly enriched by students, who have paid Xavier money that equity demands should rightfully belong to the Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a student at Xavier where she is enrolled in Xavier's College of ABSN program. Xavier University is a private university incorporated as a non-profit corporation in the State of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W.B. Markovits, Esq. Terence R. Coates, 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: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com tcoates@msdlegal.com zschaengold@msdlegal.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 721-1178 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com [*] Carlton Fields: Latest Class Action Trends ---------------------------------------------- Julianna Thomas McCabe of Carlton Fields wrote on JDSupra an article titled "From COVID-19 to Defense Strategies: The Latest Class Action Trends": As we head to print on the ninth annual Carlton Fields Class Action Survey, the unprecedented COVID-19 health and related economic crisis has wrought permanent change to business practices worldwide. There is little doubt that litigation management and, as relevant to this publication, the management and risk reduction strategies for classwide litigation will also change. Already, corporate America faces a rising tide of more than 500 new class action matters stemming from the coronavirus outbreak, and as the country cautiously takes steps to reopen, new risks emerge. We hope that this year's survey serves as a resource while you navigate these changes. As in past years, this report provides an overview of important issues and practices related to class action matters and management. It summarizes historical trends captured since the inception of the survey and includes information related to emerging issues in class action litigation. Even before the recent spike in class action filings related to the pandemic, corporations reported yet another annual increase in class action spending. Spending has increased for five consecutive years, and it likely will continue to rise in 2020. Companies are also handling a higher volume of class action matters than ever before, with complex and high-risk matters making up the bulk of existing cases. The 2020 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey is based on interviews with general counsel or senior legal officers at more than 400 Fortune 1000 and other large companies across a variety of industries. We thank you for taking the time to review our report, and trust you will find valuable information that helps your company and its legal department manage these prevalent, costly lawsuits both effectively and efficiently. Executive Summary In 2019, class action spending rose yet again, reaching $2.64 billion. The average number of matters per company increased from 7.8 in 2018 to 10.2 in 2019. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, companies reported that spending and matters were expected to increase again in 2020. In the second quarter of 2020, that expectation has become a reality. Facing a rash of new matters, 70 percent of legal decision-makers now expect an increase in class litigation this year, while virtually none report an expected decrease. Insurance class actions are on the rise, accounting for 10.7 percent of matters and 14 percent of spending. As in past years, however, the highest percentage of matters and spending are attributable to labor and employment and consumer fraud actions. Labor and employment cases account for 26.9 percent of matters and 26.4 percent of spending. In the past five years, more than two-thirds of companies have faced at least one labor and employment class action, and, in this year's survey, contractor misclassification and employee data privacy matters emerged as new concerns on the labor and employment front. The percentage of companies predicting data privacy and security as the next wave of class actions increased from last year's survey, from 54.3 percent to 58.2 percent. Companies point to new and anticipated state privacy legislation as an area fraught with class action risk. More than three-fourths of companies reported concern about the California Consumer Privacy Act (the CCPA), a data privacy law that went into effect in January 2020. One such survey respondent referred to the CCPA as a "walking lawsuit." The percentage of companies concerned about exposure resulting from the European Union's privacy regulation (the GDPR) increased by one-third. The overwhelming majority of companies, 93.8 percent, have not faced a class action lawsuit related to a data breach, and all have a data breach action plan either in place or in the works. The percentage of companies facing class actions categorized as lower exposure matters increased to 63.5 percent, nearly 10 percentage points higher than last year's survey, and per company, the percentage of lower exposure class actions increased for the first time in three years. Fewer companies were facing actions classified as complex, high-risk, or bet-the-company, with the percentage of companies facing bet-the-company cases declining to 10.6 percent, its lowest level since 2015. Insurance coverage for class litigation decreased this year, with only 22.2 percent of companies reporting that some portion of their class action defense costs were covered by insurance. Companies carrying insurance reported that higher deductibles and various exclusions limited coverage. With respect to staffing, an uptick in in-house resources reported in last year's survey was partially reversed this year as companies reported going from an average of 4.5 to 4.2 in-house lawyers dedicated to class action defense. Those attorneys spent an average of 12 hours per week managing class actions. In weighing the variables they consider most important in evaluating class action risk, companies ranked exposure as 9.1 on a 1 to 10 scale of importance. Year over year, companies have consistently ranked exposure as having the highest level of importance over other risk factors. Assessing the risks early was a theme that resonated throughout this year's survey, with approximately 62 percent of companies reporting that they conduct an early exposure analysis to defend class action matters "at the right cost." Only 12.7 percent prefer to settle such matters early, while 10.9 percent reported a "defend at all costs" philosophy. While most class actions are eventually settled, often on an individual basis, companies reported that 8.5 percent of cases originally filed with class allegations are litigated through trial. This is a substantial increase over the 2 percent reported last year. For many reasons, companies often favor individualized arbitration over class action litigation and, where possible, include arbitration clauses in their contracts as a "best practice." The percentage of companies that included arbitration clauses in their contracts increased to 77.1 percent this year, and 55 percent of those companies include class action waivers in their arbitration provisions. The two most important elements identified by companies to control costs and manage class action risk are an early analysis of case facts and, based on those facts, a preliminary calculation of potential exposure. Companies also seek to control costs with alternative fee arrangements (AFAs), and AFA usage was up 13 percentage points over the prior year. As in past years, companies reported that they prefer fixed and phased AFAs, but they have also used caps, success awards, blended rates, and more sophisticated arrangements tailored to a specific case. Companies reported a more robust approach to controlling discovery costs in their class actions. Nearly 73 percent responded that bifurcating discovery is a beneficial class action management strategy. A higher percentage than in past years also reported using motion practice, an aggressive negotiation of search terms, and similar tools to combat overly broad or disproportionate discovery demands. Finally, we asked companies participating in this year's survey to identify areas in which outside counsel can improve their performance and provide innovative solutions to class action management. Thirty-one percent identified excellent client service as an area for improvement, and 45.3 percent mentioned understanding the client's business risks as important to outside counsel's role. Companies also identified and elaborated on five sources of innovation for class action management: aggressiveness, strategic planning, immediate early case evaluation, scenario planning, and the implementation of thoughtful cost management strategies. [GN] [*] Class Action Defense Spending Expected to Rise This Year ------------------------------------------------------------ Rick Mitchell, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a big Law firm that got millions of dollars from a federal program aimed at protecting jobs in the Covid-19 crisis is laying off associates; dozens of law firms and a dozen legal education organizations, including law schools, got money from the program; half of U.K. law firm leaders responding to a recent survey said they expect to make staff cuts this year; the grand jury process is set to resume in New York City state courts in a few days; two Big Law firms have no Black equity partners, while several firms have only one; Amazon.com named a former federal prosecutor to lead its counterfeit crimes unit. * Leading off, corporate in-house legal departments initially underestimated Covid-19's impact on class action litigation they will have to defend against, but now over 70% say they expect an increase in such litigation and virtually none expect a decrease, according to Carlton Field's 2020 class action survey report, its ninth annual edition. The report is based on interviews with general counsel, chief legal officers and direct reports to general counsel, at 415 Fortune 1000 and other large companies across various industries. It says spending on class action defense, increasing for the last five years, rose 7.3% to hit $2.64 billion in 2019 and is likely to increase this year. By the end of May 2020, more than 560 Covid-19 class actions had been filed nationwide, it says. (ClassActionSurvey.com) * New York City-based Hughes Hubbard & Reed, which had $288 million in gross revenues last year according to American Lawyer, in April got between $5 million-$10 million from the federal Paycheck Protection Program, aimed at helping companies save jobs during the economic crisis set off by the Covid-19 pandemic. According to reports, the firm is laying off an unspecified number of associates, to which it is offering severance pay and training. A firm statement attributed the cuts to court closures and a slow-down in deal activity. (AbovetheLaw.com) * Hughes is among at least nine Big Law firms that got multimillion dollar loans from the PPP but cut salaries or jobs this year anyway, a report says. (American Lawyer) Dozens of Big Law firms, including Boies Schiller Flexner, Stroock; and Sullivan & Worcester got money from the program. (BLAW) * Half of U.K. law firm leaders responding to a recent Managing Partners Forum survey said they expect to make staff cuts this year. and half also said they anticipate a steep decline in revenues because of the crisis. (Law.com International) * As the pandemic forces law firms forced to adapt their offices to keep lawyers and staff safe during the pandemic, some are rethinking their plans designing new spaces. (American Lawyer) * As Covid-19 cases pile up in California, recent law graduates used a Zoom session to urge state officials to make a decision about the state's bar exam. (BLAW) * Grand juries are set to resume in New York City's state courts on Aug. 10, but it's not clear how many grand jurors will actually be willing to show up. (New York Law Journal) * Management-side worklaw firm Littler and ComplianceHR launched an automated employee screening tool to help companies manage the reopening of their workplaces after Covid-19 shutdowns. ComplianceHR is a joint venture of Littler and artificial intelligence platform Neota Logic Inc. (Littler.com) Lawyers, Law Firms * Cravath Swaine & Moore and Haynes and Boone still have no Black equity partners, while several firms have only one, according to a diversity inventory. (American Lawyer) * The general counsel of The Hershey Co., Damien Atkins, says he's a "Black male in a profession where there's not many of us. That's an opportunity for me to shine." He talked recently about what top lawyers can do to boost diversity in the legal profession. (Corporate Counsel) * Marriott Hotels, which was sued last year for allegedly ignoring sex trafficking at three of its Philadelphia hotels, can bring third-party defendants into the litigation, a federal judge ruled. (Legal Intelligencer) * Fenwick & West represented pharmacy-management startup ZipDrug on its acquisition by IngenioRx, a wholly owned subsidiary of Anthem, Inc. (Fenwick.com) (MedCityNews.com) Laterals, Moves * McDermott Will & Emery is adding a five-lawyer group from Katten Muchin Rosenman to its restructuring and insolvency practice in Dallas, led by Katten partner Charles "Chuck" Gibbs, who will now head McDermott's practice. Mark Patterson and Eric Seitz are also making the move, as counsel, along with two associates. (BLAW) * Buchalter said it hired former California federal prosecutor Joshua Robbins as chair of its new white collar & investigations practice, working out of its Los Angeles and Orange County offices. According to his LinkedIn, Robbins has been a Washington, D.C.-based Baker & Hostetler counsel and Sidley Austin associate, and he most recently led the white-collar defense practice at boutique firm Greenberg Gross LLP. (Buchalter.com) * Akin Gump hired back international trade lawyer Matthew Nicely as a partner in Washington. According to his LinkedIn, Nicely arrives from Hughes Hubbard, was international trade and practice group leader at Thomson Hine, spent time at Vinson & Elkins and Willkie Farr & Gallagher, after working as an associate at Akin Gump early in his career. (AkinGump.com) * Duane Morris recruited corporate lawyer Anastasia Kaup as a partner in Chicago. She was previously a banking and finance associate at Mayer Brown. (DuaneMorris.com) * K&L Gates' Washington office hired health care regulatory and compliance lawyer Andrew Ruskin as a partner. He arrives from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, where he was a partner advising on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement and compliance. (KLGates.com) * Haynes and Boone grabbed veteran patent lawyer Philip Albert as a partner in San Francisco, getting him from Davis Wright Tremaine. Albert previously spent 21 years at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, including 15 as partner. He was an engineer in NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and founded a company that produced semi-custom software and turnkey computer systems for accounting tasks and bank operations. (HaynesBoone.com) * Offshore firm Appleby Global appointed Tim Faries, managing partner of its Bermuda office and head of its insurance practice, to serve as chief executive officer of its year-old fiduciary services unit. (ApplebyGlobal.com) In-house * Amazon.com named associate general counsel and director Cristina Posa, a former federal prosecutor, to head the counterfeit crimes unit it launched in June. (BLAW) * Velocity Financial hired former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer Roland Kelly, a financial industry in-house veteran, as general counsel and corporate secretary. A Morgan, Lewis & Bockius associate early in his career, Kelly arrives most recently from Jefferies Financial Group Inc. where he was managing director, associate GC, and assistant secretary. (Yahoo! Finance) Legal Education * A dozen legal education organizations, including law schools and the maker of the LSAT test, got forgivable emergency loans of $150,000 or more from the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program, SBA data show. (Law.com) * A proposed New York state bill would create an emergency diploma privilege. (Law.com) [GN] [*] COVID-19 Pandemic Spurs 500+ Class Actions, Survey Shows ------------------------------------------------------------ Emma Cueto, writing for Law360, reports that the COVID-19 pandemic and associated shutdowns and economic fallout have led to more than 500 class action lawsuits, particularly insurance-related and education refund suits, according to a new survey from Carlton Fields. In the ninth annual Carlton Fields Class Action Survey, researchers found that the number of class action lawsuits had been continuing to trend upward even before the pandemic, but that COVID-19 brought on a sharp increase in new filings. The report was compiled based on interviews with chief legal officers, general counsel and direct reports to general counsel at 400 large companies across industries. "Obviously the fact that this class action litigation has continued to rise for five years in a row now is notable," said Julianna Thomas McCabe, a shareholder at Carlton Fields who worked on the report, "and the fact that companies were expecting that trend to continue into next year even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit [is notable]." Researchers found that in the early days of the pandemic, about half of in-house counsel expected that it would not have an impact on class action litigation, and about 10% expected to see a decline in cases due to lack of funding. By mid-May, however, hundreds of cases had been filed, and 70% of survey respondents said that they expected the pandemic to drive more class actions. In addition, 40% said the COVID-19-related class actions could drive companies to settle preexisting cases. McCabe noted that plaintiffs might also have a similar pressure to settle, which could lead to an upcoming wave of settlements, both those favorable to companies and those favorable to plaintiffs. "We haven't seen it yet, but it's certainly possible," she said. Overall, the report identified 560 COVID-19-related class actions filed by the end of May 2020, with more than 100 in California alone. About 25% are against insurance companies regarding business interruption coverage, and another 25% concern education refunds, according to the survey. Other common types of class actions include refund suits against gyms and entertainment venues and suits against airlines and government entities, the report found. McCabe added that she expects the number of employment and labor class actions sparked by the pandemic might also increase in the coming months. "Historically, in our survey, the top category of class actions is usually labor and employment cases, and we haven't seen the breadth of those cases that I think are going to come out of this," she said. "There have been layoffs in many, many industries. There are changes in work practices in virtually every industry. And I think companies are concerned about that." Other research has shown that there has been an uptick in workplace lawsuits, especially in California and Texas, but so far that increase does not seem to be driven by class actions. However, new COVID-19-related lawsuits continue to be filed, and litigation connected to the pandemic is becoming more and more common. Beyond COVID-19 suits, the Carlton Fields researchers found that 2020 was already on track to see an increase in class action activity, continuing a trend that has been going on for years. The report projects that companies will spend $2.73 billion on class action litigation in 2020, up from $1.92 billion in 2006. In addition, while the number of companies facing a class action has remained relatively flat since 2011, fluctuating between about 50% and 60%, the number of class actions companies are handling in any given year has more than tripled in the same period, from an average of 4.4 to an average of 15.1. This is partly due to a sharp spike in the number of new matters filed in the past three years, increasing from an average of 1.7 new matters per company in 2017 to 3.1 in 2018, 3.3 in 2019 and a projected 5.4 in 2020. The report also found that companies looking for outside counsel to handle class actions place a premium on client service and attorneys who understand the risks to the business. About 1 in 3 survey respondents named "excellent client service" as the top area in which outside counsel needs to improve, followed by aggressively pursuing a favorable outcome, which was selected by 26% of respondents. Forty-five percent of the in-house counsel in the survey also said that the most important factor for an outside attorney on a class action case was an understanding of the business risks at stake. "There's a desire out there for the best they can get, and maybe sometimes they're not getting it," said Michael Wolgin, another Carlton Fields shareholder who worked on the report. "Especially when it comes to class action defense when there's a lot on the line, they want to see excellent client service . . . and want to see that the business risk is understood." [GN] [*] New Ontario Bill Sets Higher Bar for Class Action Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Anita Balakrishnan, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that Ontario lawmakers approved a bill on July 8 that sets a higher bar for class action suits, and experts say it will be harder for consumers to sue businesses. "Because the test is more challenging now, many cases will get dropped. Businesses could likely defeat them," says Toronto lawyer Margaret Waddell. "Now if a company acts badly, that behaviour will go unchecked -- and consumers won't have remedy for the harms they suffered." Currently, a judge must approve or "certify" that a class action meets minimum legal requirements for it to proceed. Under the new law, judges would have to consider stricter guidelines before permitting a group to sue a company. That means businesses could successfully bat away more potential lawsuits before they go forward, Waddell says. The new standard, similar to what is used in the U.S., is not easy for the average consumer to meet. Successful class actions on residential schools, environmental tragedies such as the E. coli outbreak in Walkerton, Ont. and tainted blood would not have made it past this new test, the Law Commission of Ontario has estimated. To get a class action to court, a group would now have to prove that the class action is better than any other way of resolving the dispute -- for example, an individual lawsuit, tribunal complaint or "remediation" outside the legal system. The group must also prove that the greatest harms they suffered, individually -- often at the hands of a company — also impacted everyone in the group. Bill 161, which now awaits royal assent, alters more than 15 other provincial acts, with the bulk of changes aimed at modernizing the outdated justice system. The office of Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey says the bill actually promotes fairer settlements and quick resolutions where "interests of Ontarians are at the heart." Press secretary Jenessa Crognali says the bill includes the first comprehensive updates to class actions in a quarter-century. "They are designed to help Ontarians resolve their legal issues faster and receive meaningful access to justice," Crognali says. But Waddell says that since lawyers are only paid when a class action concludes, it may also become more difficult to convince them to take on risky cases that could take years to fight. "Our courts simply aren't equipped," Waddell says. "What they have done is slam the door, in particular, on personal injury types of cases, and haven't opened any other doors." Downey's office says people are free to pursue other paths to resolve disputes, and the new system makes sure that a class action is "the most appropriate procedure." "These improvements address issues that clog the system and slow down justice for everyone," says Crognali. But, says Waddell, many class actions exist to benefit people who could not afford to hire a lawyer and sue a company on their own. "It's not economically feasible," Waddell says. [GN] [*] Rochester to Join Class Action Against Opioid Producers ----------------------------------------------------------- Tanner Jubenville, writing for WHAM, reports that Rochester school board President Van White believes opioid addiction has directly impacted parents, and their kids, in the district. "You're talking about lost opportunities, additional challenges, many of these children are being raised by parents with a vicious addiction, so they are missing school, they are coming to school with significant trauma," said White. On July 8, the board voted on a resolution giving the district permission to join the multi-state lawsuit, which includes school districts from around the country, alleging opioid producing pharmaceutical companies damaged school districts, parents, and children. "These large pharmaceuticals that took advantage of the vulnerabilities of many parents that go to our schools should pay the cost for those additional burdens we must bear as a district," said White. White says opioid addiction has cost some students a chance at a proper education. He says the district has also been forced to drum up resources to make up for students being traumatized by addiction. "I don't think there's anybody that's going to doubt those are mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles of students of the Rochester City School District," said White. White says the idea was first brought up by RCSD board commissioner Ricardo Adams at the July 7 meeting. White says there's little to no cost associated with the district joining the lawsuit. "For us, it just made sense to join in this litigation," said White. He says if there's a chance for the district to get a calculated payout based on estimated losses, money could go toward addiction resources and education, or help fund positions which may deal with such issues, like social workers. That would come at a time when many social workers have been laid off due to budget cuts. "Social workers are the bridge between schools and what is happening at home," said White. [GN] [*] TCPA Class Action Trap Broadened for Unwary Businesses ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer Riley of Seyfarth Shaw LLP wrote on JDSupra an article titled "The U.S. Supreme Court Broadens The TCPA Class Action Trap For Unwary Businesses": Seyfarth Synopsis: While many businesses hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would blow up the ban on autodialed calls in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), on July 6, 2020, the nation's highest court issued its long-anticipated decision in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., No. 19-631 (July 6, 2020), and accomplished the opposite. Although the Supreme Court agreed that an exception allowing government debt-related robocalls was unconstitutional because it favored debt-collection speech, the Supreme Court merely struck down the carve out, effectively broadening the TCPA and reaffirming the law's importance. The ruling clears the way for a flood of TCPA-related lawsuits, as members of the plaintiffs' bar move forward with TCPA-related lawsuits against those who use autodialers to collect debts, such as student loans or mortgages guaranteed by the federal government, and move forward with claims they previously put "on hold" pending the Supreme Court's decision. As a result, businesses that communicate with employees and customers via telephone and text message must continue to be cautious of the TCPA's prohibitions. Background In response to consumer complaints, Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in 1991 to prohibit, among other things, robocalls to cellular and residential telephone lines. In 2015, Congress amended the robocall restriction and carved out calls made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States. The American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. and other political and non-profit organizations ("Plaintiffs") filed a declaratory judgment action against the U.S. Attorney General and the FCC (the "Government"), arguing that the government-debt exception to the TCPA violated the First Amendment because it favored debt-collection speech over political and other speech. Plaintiffs sought to invalidate the entire TCPA (rather than simply invalidate the government-debt exception). Even though the district court identified the government-debt exception as a content-based restriction on speech, the district court held that the exception survived strict scrutiny because of the Government's compelling interest in collecting debt. Id. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's order. Id. (citing Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc. v. FCC, 923 F.3d 159, 167 (4th Cir. 2019)). The Fourth Circuit agreed that the government-debt exception was a content-based restriction on speech, but it held that the exception failed a strict scrutiny review and severed the exception. Id. at 5-6. The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari. The Supreme Court's Ruling The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit's ruling. As an initial matter, the Supreme Court found the TCPA's robocall restriction, with the government-debt exception, a content-based restriction because it favors speech made for the purpose of collecting government debt over political and other speech. As the Supreme Court explained, "A robocall that says, ‘Please pay your government debt' is legal. A robocall that says, ‘Please donate to our political campaign' is illegal. That is about as content-based as it gets." Id. at 7. As such, the Supreme Court found it subject to a strict scrutiny review. The Supreme Court rejected the Government's arguments to the contrary. First, it noted that the TCPA does not draw any distinction based on the speaker, rather than the content, and, even if it did, that would not automatically render the distinction content neutral. Id. at 8. Second, it noted that the TCPA focuses on whether the caller is speaking about a particular topic and not, as the Government contended, on whether the caller is engaged in a particular economic activity. Id. Next, the Supreme Court held that the robocall restriction with the government-debt exception could not satisfy strict scrutiny. It noted that the Government failed sufficiently to justify the differentiation between government-debt collection speech and other important categories of robocall speech, such as political speech, issue advocacy, commercial advertising, and the like. Id. at 9. Having so concluded, the Supreme Court then turned to the question of whether it should invalidate the entire TCPA or whether it could cure the problem by severing the government-debt exception from the remainder of the TCPA. Because the TCPA was an amendment to the Communications Act, which contains an express severability clause, the Supreme Court concluded that it was required to sever the offending provision. Id. at 18. The Supreme Court noted that its "precedents reflect a decisive preference for surgical severance rather than wholesale destruction, even in the absence of a severability clause." Id. at 15. Applying that preference, the Supreme Court explained it would sever the exception from the remainder of the TCPA because the remainder of the law "is capable of functioning independently" and in fact "function[ed] independently . . . 20-plus years before the government-debt exception was added in 2015." Id. at 18. Implications Of The Supreme Court's Ruling Although many businesses hoped that the Supreme Court would invalidate the TCPA, the ruling in Barr gives it a boost. Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh noted that, while "Americans passionately disagree about many things," they "are largely united in their disdain for robocalls" and he quoted legislative history that described robocalls as the "scourge of modern civilization." Id. at 1, 3. As such, businesses should brace for a renewed flurry of TCPA-related class action lawsuits, as the plaintiffs' bar moves forward with TCPA-related lawsuits against debt collectors and other businesses previously put "on hold" pending the Supreme Court's decision, aided by Plaintiff-friendly "gems" from the opinion in Barr. That said, the Supreme Court's opinion opens the door to new defenses, including challenges to other portions of the TCPA. The Supreme Court ruled that Plaintiffs "still may not make political robocalls to cell phones, but their speech is now treated equally with debt-collection speech." The TCPA and FCC regulations, however, provide for other exceptions that may be equally problematic and subject to challenge in that they similarly fail to treat speech equally. Thus, as TCPA litigation gets a boost, the Supreme Court's decision may provide a roadmap for new angles of attack. [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 ***