/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200804.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, August 4, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 155
Headlines
ABBVIE INC: Monopolizes Nebivolol HCl Market, JM Smith Suit Says
ACE FIRE: Denies Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, Eric Debella Says
AIR CANADA: Boyd Sues Over Failure to Pay Complete Overtime Wages
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Tentative Deal Reached in Raziano Suit
ALORICA INC: Hope Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
AMERICAN CARDIAC TELEMETRY: Levites Sues to Recover Last Pay Check
APPLE INC: Oct. 6 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
ARCHER DANIELS: Midwest Renewable Balks at Monopoly of Ethanol
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: JAVELIN Shareholder Suit Ongoing
ASSURANCE 832: Benitez Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
AUDATEX NORTH: Faces Clippinger Breach of Contract Suit in Tenn.
BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit over GE Deal
BANK OF AMERICA: Lopez Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
BH MEDIA: Cruz Discrimination Suit From Super. Court to D.N.J.
BILFINGER INC: Montalvo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
BRAVO ELECTRONICS: Izaguirre Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
BUFFALO RESTAURANT: Faces Class Action Suit From Tempo Employees
CALIFIA FARMS: Oct. 7 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
CALIFORNIA: Roshan Sues OCTC Alleging Violations of Civil Rights
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial in Train Derailment Suit Set for Sept. 28
CARDWORKS SERVICING: Kraus Sues Over Off-the-Clock Pay for CSRs
CARNIVAL CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Securities Class Action
CASPER SLEEP: Faces Gorenberg Securities Suit Over IPO Price Drop
CASPER SLEEP: Faces Mattern Securities Suit Over IPO Price Drop
CENTENNIAL RESOURCE: Maillet Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Gowen Suit Hits Share Price Drop
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
CHOU TEAM: Faces Reiners Suit Over Background Checks
COBRA ACQUISITIONS: LeJeune Seeks to Certify Day-Rate Worker Class
COLONY CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Lawsuit
COMPASS GROUP: Faces Wage-and-Hour Suit from Meola and Sanchez
COMPLETE BUSINESS: Petropangea Sues Over Illegal Loanshark Scheme
CORNELIANI USA: Guglielmo Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
CYTOSPORT MUSCLE: Oct. 19 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
DAVI TRANSPORTATION: Gaither Default Judgment Bid Partly Granted
DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in Former Calif. Employee's Suit
DENTAL CRAFTERS: Faces Mader Suit Over Unpaid OT and Meal Periods
DHL EXPRESS: Lafayette Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
DYNASERV FLORIDA: Williams Seeks Overtime Pay
ECMOHO LIMITED: Johnson Fistel Launches Investigation into Company
FACTORY MUTUAL: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Rockhurst Says
FIFTH THIRD: Refuses to Pay for PPP Agents' Services, Picker Says
FIRST WATCH: Hobbs Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
FUSION CONSULTING: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
GHG-THE FITNESS: Skiba Seeks Unpaid Salaried Wages Under FLSA
GLOBAL UPRISING: Cruz Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Buyers
GREENSKY INC: Faces Wright Suit in Florida Over Undisclosed Fees
GSE SYSTEMS: Tentative Settlement Reached in Joyce Suit
HALLMARK SHELL: Gary Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HAMILTON BEACH: Bid to Dismiss Stockholder's Class Suit Pending
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Good Times Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
HARTFORD FIRE: Restaurants Sue Over Denied Insurance Claims
HARVEST MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses Schafer Case Without Prejudice
HERC HOLDINGS: Appeal to Revive Ramirez Class Suit Pending
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Won't Pay Loan Agents' Fees, Prinzo Claims
IDEAL HOME: Faces Prieto Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Violations
INTERSTATE HOTELS: Faces Strojnik Suit Over Inaccessibility Issue
JACKSON CITY, TN: Cockrell Sues Over Unpaid Meal Periods
KETORO INC: Court Grants Derrick Reaves' Bid to Certify Class
KIRKLAND LAKE: Klein Law Reminds of Aug. 28 Plaintiff Deadline
LABOSMILE USA: Dr. Linda Johnston Sues Over Unsolicited Robocalls
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Young Seeks Website Access for Blind Students
M&M BURGERS: Ba Labor Suit Challenges Improper Wages Policies
MAR-CONE APPLIANCE: Faces Hernandez Employment Suit in California
MARSHALL HOTELS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under NYLL, Link Says
MEDXCOM LLC: Kawa Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
MEGA DEVELOPMENT: Holden Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
MONSANTO CO: Randall Sues Over Sale of Glyphosate-Based Herbicide
MORGAN STANLEY: Tillman Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII
MR. T'S INC: Fails to Pay Dancers' Minimum & OT Wages, Rice Says
OREGON: Umatilla County Agrees to Pay For Joint Legal Defense
PEARSON EDUCATION: Pelletier et al. Allege Price-Fixing of eBooks
PERSONAL WEALTH: Faces Green Suit Over Unsolicited Calls & Texts
PITTSBURGH LOGISTICS: Alesius Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
PLAYAGS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Gibson FDCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss AMCA Data Security Suit Pending
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Continues to Defend House Putative Class Suit
QV MANAGEMENT: Faces Puya Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
RESTAURANTS OPERATORS: Santana Suit Removed to D. Puerto Rico
RETAIL RECOVERY: Twyman et al. Seek to Certify Class Action
RIO VISTA: Baker Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
RIVER OAKS: Summers Suit Removed From Cir. Court to N.D. Illinois
RIVERSIDE MEDICAL: Faces Salerno Suit Over Removal From MA Plan
ROOSEN VARCHETTI OLIVER: Eickenroth Hits Summons Amidst Quarantine
SANTA BARBARA, CA: Reaches Deal in Class Suit Over Jail Conditions
SC JOHNSON: Falsely Markets Windex Non-Toxic Products, Clark Says
SCIPLAY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Retirement Sys. and Li Suits Pending
SCIPLAY CORP: Nevada Court Stays Good's IPO Class Suit
SCWORX CORP: Leonard Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
SEAWORLD PARKS: Gurwell Sues Over Cancelled Passes, Seeks Refund
SHUTTERFLY INC: Faces LP Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data
SLEEP NUMBER: Settlement Reached in San Diego Class Suit
SNAP INC: Settlement in IPO Class Suit Wins Initial Approval
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Lawsuit
STUBHUB INC: Menzel Demands Ticket Refund Due to COVID-19 Closure
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Appeal in Stichting Depositary Suit Pending
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Defends Cambell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Refuses to Pay Loan Agents' Fees, Ratliff Says
TERRAFORM POWER: Defends Reorganization-Related Suits
TIDEWATER FINANCE: Caldera Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
TIFFANY & COMPANY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Says
TRANSITIONAL SERVICES: David Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
TRAVELERS COMPANIES: Denies Coverage for COVID Losses, A2Z Claims
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 21 Deadline
U BY KOTEX: Aug. 18 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
U.S. BANK: Faces Kashani TILA Suit Over Failure to Provide Notice
UNITED STATES: Faces Jomaa Immigration Suit in C.D. California
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Fails to Issue Refunds, Swartz Alleges
UXIN LIMITED: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suits
VERRICA PHARMA Schall Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
VITAS HOSPICE: Eisenacher Negligence Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
VITOL INC: Kolesnikow Suit Asserts Gas Price-fixing
WENCO ASHLAND: Managers Class in Adams Suit Conditionally Certified
WEST VIRGINIA: Baxley Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
WINS FINANCE: Kamau Sues Over 6.1% Drop in Share Price
YELP INC: Violates Labor Code by Not Paying All Wages, Leon Says
ZOOSK INC: Flores-Mendez et al. Sue Over Data Theft
[*] Cryptocurrency Entrepreneurs to Sue Google, Facebook, Twitter
*********
ABBVIE INC: Monopolizes Nebivolol HCl Market, JM Smith Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JM SMITH CORPORATION d/b/a SMITH DRUG COMPANY, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. ABBVIE INC., ALLERGAN, INC.,
ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, ALLERGAN USA, INC., FOREST LABORATORIES, INC.,
FOREST LABORATORIES HOLDINGS, LTD., FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND,
LTD., and FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05735
(S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020), is a civil antitrust action seeking
treble damages arising out of the Defendants' unlawful exclusion of
generic substitutes for the branded drug Bystolic.
Bystolic is otherwise known as nebivolol hydrochloride or nebivolol
HCl, a "beta blocker" used to treat high blood pressure.
The Defendants' monopoly power in the nebivolol HCl market was
maintained through willful exclusionary conduct, as distinguished
from growth or development as a consequence of a legally-obtained
valid patent, other legally-obtained market exclusivity, a superior
product, business acumen, or historical accident, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' scheme violated
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, injuring the Plaintiff and the
Class of direct purchasers it seeks to represent and causing them
to pay overcharges.
AbbVie is an American publicly traded biopharmaceutical company
founded in 2013. AbbVie originated as a spin-off of Abbott
Laboratories.
Allergan operates as a pharmaceutical company. Forest and its
successors manufacture the brand version of Bystolic, which is one
of their key drugs, delivering nearly $1 billion in United States
annual sales. Although would-be generic manufacturers began
applying with the United States Food and Drug Administration to
market generic nebivolol HCl on December 17, 2011, no generic
competitor has or will enter until September 17, 2021.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
Joseph Opper, Esq.
Dan Litvin, Esq.
GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 398-0055
E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
jopper@garwingerstein.com
dlitvin@garwingerstein.com
- and -
Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
Andrew W. Kelly, Esq.
ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 522-0077
E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com
akelly@odrlaw.com
- and -
Susan Segura, Esq.
David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
Erin R. Leger, Esq.
SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER, LLP
221 Ansley Blvd.
Alexandria, LA 71303
Telephone: (318) 445-4480
E-mail: ssegura@ssrllp.com
draphael@ssrllp.com
eleger@ssrllp.com
- and -
Russell Chorush, Esq.
HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 221-2000
E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com
- and -
David F. Sorensen, Esq.
Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
Daniel C. Simons, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
ccoslett@bm.net
dsimons@bm.net
ACE FIRE: Denies Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, Eric Debella Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC DEBELLA INC. d/b/a PHILLY BLOKE HAIR SALON v. ACE FIRE
UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-03439-TJS (E.D.
Pa., July 14, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated seeking declaratory relief arising from
the Plaintiff's and members of the class' contracts of insurance
with the Defendant.
In light of the Coronavirus global pandemic and state and local
orders mandating that all non-essential in-store businesses must
shut down, and the suffering of physical harm and impact and
damages, within the Plaintiff's business premises and/or within the
immediate area surrounding and outside its business premises, the
Plaintiff was forced to suspend its regular business to customers
on March 19, 2020, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has accepted the policy
premiums with no intention of providing any coverage for business
losses or the Civil Authority extension due to a loss and shutdown
from a pandemic. The Plaintiff made a claim under the policy for
coverage, which was denied by the Defendant.
The Plaintiff operates, manages and owns a hair salon located at 15
West Avenue, in Wayne, Pennsylvania.
Ace is an insurance carrier, which provides business interruption
insurance to the Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arnold Levin, Esq.
Laurence S. Berman, Esq.
Frederick Longer, Esq.
Daniel Levin, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, L.L.P.
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com
lberman@lfsblaw.com
flonger@lfsblaw.com
dlevin@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 985-9177
Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
- and -
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
Rachel N. Boyd, Esq.
Paul W. Evans, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
P.O. Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
AIR CANADA: Boyd Sues Over Failure to Pay Complete Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Velarde Boyd, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. AIR CANADA, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01748 (M.D. Fla.,
July 29, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
pay complete overtime wages for every hour worked pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and his fellow Customer Service Agents have been
systemically denied complete overtime wages to which they were
entitled by law and now seek to hold the Defendant accountable,
according to the complaint. This was not an innocent mistake or
oversight. The Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff complete
overtime wages when pay records clearly showed he worked more than
40 hours in a workweek. Simply put, the Defendant willfully
violated the FLSA by denying the Plaintiff complete overtime
wages.
The Defendant knew exactly what it was doing, the Plaintiff
alleges. Under no plausible interpretation of the FLSA were the
Plaintiff exempt from overtime pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for ACA as a Customer Service Agent from July
2018 until September 2019.
ACA is a foreign for profit corporation which operates and conducts
business in, among others, Hillsborough County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
George G. Triantis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: 813-257-0572
Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com
GTriantis@forthepeople.com
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Tentative Deal Reached in Raziano Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Raziano, et al., v.
Albertson's LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-04373-JAK-AS (C.D.
Cal.),, Plaintiffs' counsel has advised the Court that the parties
have reached a tentative settlement.
On March 11, 2020, the Parties participated in mediation with the
Hon. Ronald M. Sabraw (Ret.) of JAMS. Although the Parties were
unable to reach a resolution that day, the Parties continued
settlement negotiations with the assistance of Judge Sabraw, and
reached a tentative Class and Representative Action settlement on
July 15, 2020.
According to Plaintiffs' counsel, the Parties are presently working
cooperatively to prepare and finalize a long-form Class and
Representative Action settlement agreement detailing the terms of
the settlement. The Parties expect to have a fully executed
settlement agreement no later than August 31, 2020. Plaintiffs
anticipate filing their motion for preliminary approval no later
than 30 days after execution of the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the Parties ask the Court for permission to file
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary settlement approval by September
30, 2020, or a date thereafter that the Court deems appropriate.
The Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt had entered an order:
1. staying the proceedings in this action pending the filing
of a motion for preliminary approval;
2. vacating all dates in this action set for July 20, 2020 at
8:30 a.m., including the post mediation status conference
and hearings on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and the Defendant's motion to strike class
member declarations submitted in support of the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and
3. directing the parties to file a joint report on or before
July 27, 2020, as to the status of the settlement process,
including the proposed dates for the filing of the motion
for preliminary approval and the corresponding hearing.
Albertson's LLC operates a chain of grocery stores. The Company
offers pharmacy and deli products, seafood, fruit, vegetables,
flowers, baked goods, beer, and wine.[CC]
Counsel to Plaintiffs:
Michael D. Singer, Esq.
Marta Manus, Esq.
COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
605 C Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 595-3001
Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
mmanus@ckslaw.com
- and -
Roger Carter, Esq.
THE CARTER LAW FIRM
23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 254-7500
Facsimile: (949) 629-2501
E-mail: roger@carterlawfirm.net
- and -
Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 629-2533
Facsimile: (949) 629-2501
E-mail: Marc@phelpslawgroup.com
Counsel to Defendant:
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Ray E. Boggess, Esq.
Tyler B. Runge, Esq.
4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 851-1100
Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
E-mail: jkb@paynefears.com
reb@paynefears.com
tbr@paynefears.com
ALORICA INC: Hope Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Mikayla Hope, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Alorica, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00166 (S.D. Tex., June 23, 2020), seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Texas Common
Law.
Alorica, Inc. is a multinational customer solutions services
company. Hope worked as call center agent who provided customer
support to its customers. She claims to have been denied overtime
for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
John D. Garcia, Esq.
ANDERSON2X, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Tel: (361) 452-1279
Fax: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
cgordon@a2xlaw.com
john@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
AMERICAN CARDIAC TELEMETRY: Levites Sues to Recover Last Pay Check
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Levites, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. American Cardiac Telemetry and Jim Duch,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00280, (M.D. Fla., June 23, 2020), seeks
to recover minimum wages for all hours worked, all damages and
relief including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses and all other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Levites was hired as a non-exempt employee by American Cardiac
Telemetry but was not paid for his final three weeks of work ending
on January 31, 2020, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad E. Levy, Esq.
Law Offices of Levy & Levy, P.A.
1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588
Sunrise, FL 33323
Tel: (954) 763-5722
Fax: (954) 763-5723
Email: chad@levylevylaw.com
assistant@levylevylaw.com
APPLE INC: Oct. 6 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Moritz, writing for KSAT.com, reports that users of various
iPhone 6 and iPhone 7 models can stake their claim in Apple's $310
million class-action lawsuit settlement over throttling.
Remember the so-called "batterygate?" The issue in the lawsuit was
that Apple was slowing speeds to offset errors caused by aging
batteries but not notifying owners.
You qualify to receive $25 per phone if you owned an iPhone 6, 6
Plus, 6s, 6s Plus or SE device that ran iOS 10.2.1 or later before
Dec. 21, 2017. You also qualify if you owned an iPhone 7 or 7 Plus
that ran iOS 11.2 or later.
The website to file a claim is www.smartphonesettlement.com. The
deadline is Oct. 6.
The company does not admit to any wrongdoing by settling these
claims. [GN]
ARCHER DANIELS: Midwest Renewable Balks at Monopoly of Ethanol
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIDWEST RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02212-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., July
23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant alleging
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to acquire and maintain its monopoly power
in the Kinder Morgan Argo terminal located in Argo, Illinois,
between November 1, 2017 and September 4, 2019. The Defendant's
uneconomic conduct includes: (1) diverted and shipped large
supplies of ethanol into Argo terminal in order to inflate supply
and depress prices of all purchases and sales of ethanol, and (2)
aggressively reduced its offers and aggressively hit bids in the
Argo sales market.
As a result of the Defendant's exercise of market power at Argo
terminal, the prices at Argo were less than the prices at other
terminals by approximately 5-15 cents per gallon.
Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC is an ethanol producer located in
Sutherland, Nebraska.
Archer Daniels Midland Company is a global food processing and
commodities trading corporation with its North American
headquarters located at 4666 East Faries Parkway, Decatur,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
Andrew Szot, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 332-3400
E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
aszot@millerlawllc.com
- and –
Christopher Lovell, Esq.
Benjamin M. Jaccarino, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2440
New York, NY 10110
Telephone: (212) 608-1900
E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
bjaccarino@lshllp.com
- and –
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 507-6085
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: JAVELIN Shareholder Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case
No. 24-C-16-001542).
Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the
"Merger") for JAVELIN. The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively
defined herein as the "Transactions."
All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board
of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current
members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual
Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as
defendants.
Certain cases also name ARMOUR Capital Management LP (ACM) and
JAVELIN as additional defendants.
The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's common
stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the
putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the
Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to
take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders;
ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed
to disclose material information about the Transactions; took steps
to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage
by failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or
alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to
other third-party bidders. The suits also allege that ARMOUR,
JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants.
The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other relief,
to enjoin consummation of the Transactions, or rescind or unwind
the Transactions if already consummated, and award costs and
disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.
The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and
that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017.
On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating
the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland
cases as interim lead co-counsel.
On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding
and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste.
On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
A hearing was held on the Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and
the Court reserved ruling. On September 27, 2019 the court further
deferred the matter for six months.
On June 15, 2020, co-counsel for the plaintiff filed a notice of
supplemental authority requesting to move the matter forward. No
further action has been taken by the court.
Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants intends
to defend the claims made in these lawsuits vigorously; however,
there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the
Individual Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these
lawsuits to which it is a party.
ARMOUR said, "An unfavorable resolution of any such litigation
surrounding the Transactions may result in monetary damages being
awarded to the plaintiffs and the putative class of former
stockholders of JAVELIN and the cost of defending the litigation,
even if resolved favorably, could be substantial. Due to the
preliminary nature all of these suits, ARMOUR is not able at this
time to estimate their outcome."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgage
backed securities in the United States. The company is managed by
ARMOUR Capital Management LP. The company was founded in 2008 and
is based in Vero Beach, Florida.
ASSURANCE 832: Benitez Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANO BENITEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSURANCE 832, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01367-BEN-MDD (S.D. Cal., July 17,
2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for
their alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant contacted Plaintiff through
an automatic telephone dialing system or an "artificial or
prerecorded voice" to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending
in 7919 beginning on or around January 2, 2020 in an effort to sell
or solicits its services and without Plaintiff's prior express
consent to receive such calls.
Assurance 832 is a small business loan company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 866-598-5042
Fax: 866-633-0228
Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
AUDATEX NORTH: Faces Clippinger Breach of Contract Suit in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Audatex North
America, Inc. The case is captioned as Jessica Clippinger, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Audatex
North America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-02501-SHL (W.D. Tenn., July 13, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman.
The nature of suit is stated as breach of contract.
Audatex designs and markets software tools and solutions. The
Company offers collision estimating systems, claims processing
software, and analytics, as well as provides automotive recycling
and e-commerce solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. McLaughlin, Esq.
901 ATTORNEYS, LLC
254 Court Avenue, Suite 209
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 671-1551
Facsimile: (901) 671-1571
E-mail: david@901attorneys.com
BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit over GE Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 24, 2020 for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020 that the company continues to defend the consolidated class
action suit by Tri-State Joint Fund and City of Providence.
On July 3, 2017, the company closed a business combination of the
oil and gas business of General Electric Company (GE O&G) and Baker
Hughes Incorporated (BHI). As a result, substantially all of the
businesses of GE O&G and of BHI were transferred to a subsidiary of
the Company, Baker Hughes, a GE company, LLC (BHGE LLC). Following
the Transactions, the company held a minority economic interest in
BHGE LLC. However, the company conducted and exercised full control
over all activities of BHGE LLC without the approval of any other
member. Accordingly, the company consolidated the financial results
of BHGE LLC and reported a noncontrolling interest in the company's
consolidated financial statements for the economic interest in BHGE
LLC not held by the company.
On August 13, 2019, Tri-State Joint Fund filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on
the behalf of itself and all similarly situated public stockholders
of Baker Hughes Incorporated ("BHI") against the General Electric
Company, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and
certain former BHI Officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting, and other claims in connection with the
Transactions.
On October 28, 2019, City of Providence filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on behalf of
itself and all similarly situated public shareholders of BHI
against GE, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI,
and certain former BHI Officers alleging substantially the same
claims in connection with the Transactions.
The relief sought in these complaints include a request for a
declaration that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, an
award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
The lawsuits have been consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on December 17, 2019 against
certain former BHI officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and
against GE for aiding and abetting those breaches.
The December 2019 complaint omitted the former members of the Board
of Directors of BHI, except for Mr. Craighead who also served as
President and CEO of BHI. Mr. Martin Craighead and Ms. Ross, who
served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of BHI,
remain named in the December 2019 complaint along with GE.
The relief sought in the consolidated complaint includes a
declaration that the former BHI officers breached their fiduciary
duties and that GE aided and abetted those breaches, an award of
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
Baker Hughes said, "At this time, we are not able to predict the
outcome of these claims."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Baker Hughes Company provides oilfield products and services. The
Company engages in surface logging, drilling, pipeline operations,
petroleum engineering, and fertilizer solutions, as well as offers
gas turbines, valves, actuators, pumps, flow meters, generators,
and motors. Baker Hughes serves oil and gas industries worldwide.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.
BANK OF AMERICA: Lopez Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
--------------------------------------------------
Francis Lopez, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-04172 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2020) seeks monetary
and/or equitable relief, statutory, treble, punitive or exemplary
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs of suit, including costs of notice, administration and
expert fees and such other legal or equitable relief, including
injunctive or declaratory relief resulting from unjust enrichment,
breach of contract—third party beneficiary and California's
Unfair Competition Law.
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.
Lopez is a bookkeeper who assisted his small business client with
preparing and submitting an application for a PPP loan through Bank
of America. The application was approved, securing a total of
$70,243 in funding for Mr. Lopez's client. Under the PPP rules,
Bank of America received an origination fee of $3,512.15, and Lopez
was entitled to an Agent Fee of $702.43 to be paid from Bank of
America's origination fee. However, Bank of America said that it
does not pay fees or other compensation to agents who represent or
assist borrowers through the Paycheck Protection Program. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
Andrea R. Gold
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Tel.: (202) 973-0900
Fax: (202) 973-0950
Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
agold@tzlegal.com
BH MEDIA: Cruz Discrimination Suit From Super. Court to D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as IDALIS M. CRUZ v. BH MEDIA
GROUP, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No. ATL-L-1689-20
(Filed June 19, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Atlantic County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on July 23, 2020.
The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-09346 to the proceeding.
The action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
individuals similarly situated alleging violations of the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the New Jersey Family Leave Act,
and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
BH Media Group was founded in 2012. The Company's line of business
includes publishing newspapers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
The Defendant is represented by:
John K. Bennett, Esq.
R. Shane Kagan, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Connell Drive, Suite 2000
Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
Telephone: (908) 795-5200s
BILFINGER INC: Montalvo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS CABRERA MONTALVO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BILFINGER, INC.; BILFINGER SALAMIS
INC.; and BILFINGER WESTCON INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-02608 (S.D. Tex., July 23, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated non-exempt laborers for overtime work at
1.5 times their regular rate of pay in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The Defendants did not include all remuneration such
as per diem pay in calculating their regular rate of pay, which
resulted to nonpayment of their overtime premium compensation.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a painter from
approximately February 2020 through March 2020 at Bilfinger's
Braskem job site located at 8811 Strang Road, La Porte, Texas.
Bilfinger, Inc. is an international industrial services provider
with its principal executive office and corporate headquarters
located at 1450 Lake Robbins Drive, Suite 200, The Woodlands,
Texas.
Bilfinger Salamis Inc. is a provider of maintenance and industrial
support services with its principal executive office and corporate
headquarters located at 1450 Lake Robbins Drive, Suite 200, The
Woodlands, Texas. In or around January 2020, Bilfinger Salamis Inc.
merged with Bilfinger, Inc.
Bilfinger Westcon Inc. is a construction company with its principal
executive office and corporate headquarters previously located at
7401 Yukon Drive, Bismarck, North Dakota. In or around January
2020, Bilfinger Westcon Inc. merged with Bilfinger, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
- and –
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
E-mail: jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
aortiz@fslawfirm.com
BRAVO ELECTRONICS: Izaguirre Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------
Mario A. Izaguirre, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Project V Inc., Shlomo Vaknine and Pini Vaknine,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-61210, (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2020), seeks
to recover money damages for unpaid minimum, overtime wages and for
retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate as "Bravo Electronics" a retail business selling
computers, audio, visual, communication equipment and electronic
gadgets located at the Sawgrass Mills Mall in Sunrise, Florida
where Izaguirre worked as a full-time inside salesman. He regularly
worked from Monday to Sunday without taking any bonafide lunch
periods. He was paid on a "commissions only" payment plan and did
not have other compensation thus, depending on his commissions, was
often paid below the mandatory minimum wage rate and denied
overtime premiums. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
BUFFALO RESTAURANT: Faces Class Action Suit From Tempo Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum News reports that Tempo servers have filed a class action
suit against Buffalo restaurant and its owner for allegedly
withholding tips earned working private events.
In the lawsuit, severs say customers hosting events at the
restaurant are lead to believe that they are paying 20 percent
gratuity.
The servers say they never saw that money, alleging it was kept by
the restaurant, a violation of New York Labor Law.
Servers say they've lost thousands of dollars in income because of
this. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Tempo employees who have
worked at the restaurant over the last six years.
Spectrum News reached out to the owner of Tempo for comment, and
have yet to hear back. [GN]
CALIFIA FARMS: Oct. 7 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Moritz, writing for KSAT.com, reports that Califia Farms
settled a class-action lawsuit that alleged the company was
deceptive and did not use real vanilla in several products. Those
include certain non-dairy coffees, creamers, almond milks and
yogurts. If you purchased those products between Aug. 7, 2014, and
March 20, 2020, you can file a claim in the $3 million settlement.
With proof of purchase, you may receive up to $15. Without proof,
you may receive up to $5. The deadline to file a claim is October
7. The website set up for claims is www.nondairysettlement.com.
The company does not admit to any wrongdoing by settling these
claims. [GN]
CALIFORNIA: Roshan Sues OCTC Alleging Violations of Civil Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Office of Chief
Trial Counsel, et al. The case is captioned as Peyman Roshan, an
individual on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Office of Chief Trial Counsel; and Melanie J. Lawrence, in her
official capacity as Chief Trial Counsel, and in her personal
capacity, Case No. 3:20-cv-04770-AGT (N.D. Cal., July 16, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Alex G. Tse.
The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Other.
The Office of Chief Trial Counsel handles complaints from both
clients, members of the public, and other attorneys over unethical
professional conduct.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cyrus Mark Sanai, Esq.
SANAIS LAW
9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 717-9840
E-mail: cyrus@sanaislaw.com
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial in Train Derailment Suit Set for Sept. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a trial to
determine liability issues in the class action suit related to the
train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, is scheduled to commence
September 28, 2020.
On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by
Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMAR") or a subsidiary,
Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the
"MMA Group"), derailed in Lac-Megantic. The derailment occurred on
a section of railway owned and operated by the MMA Group and while
the MMA Group exclusively controlled the train.
Following the derailment, MMAC sought court protection in Canada
under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and MMAR filed for
bankruptcy in the U.S. Plans of arrangement were approved in both
Canada and the U.S. (the "Plans"), providing for the distribution
of approximately $440 million amongst those claiming derailment
damages.
A number of legal proceedings, were commenced in Canada and the
U.S. against CP and others:
(1) Quebec's Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment,
Wildlife and Parks ordered various parties, including the company
(CP), to remediate the derailment site (the "Cleanup Order") and
served CP with a Notice of Claim for $95 million for those costs.
CP appealed the Cleanup Order and contested the Notice of Claim
with the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec. These proceedings are
stayed pending determination of the Attorney General of Quebec
("AGQ") action.
(2) The AGQ sued CP in the Quebec Superior Court claiming $409
million in damages, which was amended and reduced to $315 million
(the "AGQ Action"). The AGQ Action alleges that: (i) CP was
responsible for the petroleum crude oil from its point of origin
until its delivery to Irving Oil Ltd.; and (ii) CP is vicariously
liable for the acts and omissions of the MMA Group.
(3) A class action in the Quebec Superior Court on behalf of
persons and entities residing in, owning or leasing property in,
operating a business in, or physically present in Lac-Megantic at
the time of the derailment was certified against CP on May 8, 2015
(the "Class Action"). Other defendants including MMAC and Mr.
Thomas Harding ("Harding") were added to the Class Action on
January 25, 2017. The Class Action seeks unquantified damages,
including for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, and
economic loss.
(4) Eight subrogated insurers sued CP in the Quebec Superior
Court claiming approximately $16 million in damages, which was
amended and reduced to approximately $15 million (the "Promutuel
Action"), and two additional subrogated insurers sued CP claiming
approximately $3 million in damages (the "Royal Action"). Both
actions contain similar allegations as the AGQ Action. The actions
do not identify the subrogated parties. As such, the extent of any
overlap between the damages claimed in these actions and under the
Plans is unclear. The Royal Action is stayed pending determination
of the consolidated proceedings described below.
On December 11, 2017, the AGQ Action, the Class Action and the
Promutuel Action were consolidated. These consolidated claims are
currently scheduled for a joint liability trial commencing
September 15, 2021, followed by a damages trial, if necessary.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada and
the United States. The company transports bulk commodities,
including grain, coal, potash, fertilizers, and sulphur; and
merchandise freight, such as energy, chemicals and plastics,
metals, minerals and consumer, automotive, and forest products.
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is
headquartered in Calgary, Canada.
CARDWORKS SERVICING: Kraus Sues Over Off-the-Clock Pay for CSRs
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE KRAUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARDWORKS SERVICING, L.L.C. and CARDWORKS
SERVICES., L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03311 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated customer service representatives (CSRs) who worked at the
Defendants' call centers are not being compensated for all time
worked and for all of their overtime compensation. The Plaintiff
and Class members are not paid for the time they spent while
logging in and logging out of the computer programs, software
programs, servers, and applications, meaning that they worked for
several minutes each per shift that they were never compensated
for. This off-the-clock time that the CSRs spent logging in and out
of each session directly benefitted the Defendants and this process
was an essential part of their job responsibilities. The Defendants
also failed to compensate them for work activities that they
performed during their lunch breaks.
The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly CSR at the Defendants' Call
Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania from approximately September
2013 to March 2019.
CardWorks Servicing, LLC is a consumer financing service provider
headquartered in Woodbury, New York. It is previously known as
CardWorks Services, LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (201) 630-0000
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
- and –
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
crash@sommerspc.com
CARNIVAL CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Carnival Corporation & Plc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
Carnival Corporation & Plc Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carnival-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=8143&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Carnival Corporation & Plc (NYSE:CCL)
CCL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 26,
2019 - May 1, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : July 27, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carnival-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=8143&wire=1
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]
CASPER SLEEP: Faces Gorenberg Securities Suit Over IPO Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN GORENBERG, Individually and on behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CASPER SLEEP INC., PHILIP KRIM, GREGORY
MACFARLANE, NEIL PARIKH, ANTHONY FLORENCE, DIANE IRVINE, KAREN
KATZ, JACK LAZAR, BENJAMIN LERER, DANI REISS, MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO., LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, BOFA SECURITIES INC.,
UBS SECURITIES LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., PIPER SANDLER &
CO., GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES , LLC, and DOES 1-25, Case No.
653118/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., July 15, 2020), alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the
precipitous decline in the Company's share price.
The lawsuit is a securities class action brought on behalf of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired Casper common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and
incorporated Prospectus (the Offering Documents) issued in
connection with Casper's February 2020 initial public offering
(IPO).
The Plaintiff alleges that the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the IPO contained materially incorrect or
misleading statements and/or omitted material information that was
required to be disclosed. The Plaintiff alleges claims arising
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
On March 19, 2020, Casper filed a Form 8-K, announcing its
financial results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2019.
Among other things, the Company reported net revenues of $439.3
million, which was an increase of $81.4 million, or 22.7%, compared
to $357.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. This was a
substantial decrease from the 44.5% compound annual growth rate
touted in the Offering Documents.
The Form 8-K disclosed that direct-to-consumer sales increased
13.0% from 2018. This was substantially lower than the prior year,
as disclosed in the Offering Documents, when direct-to-consumer
sales increased 41.9% compared to 2017.
After reaching a high of $15.85 per share, Casper's stock price
plummeted. At the time this action was commenced, the stock was
trading at approximately $8.00 per share--a 33% decline from the
Company's $12 IPO price.
The Plaintiff purchased Casper common stock pursuant or traceable
to the Offering Documents and the IPO and has been damaged
thereby.
Casper Sleep is a public e-commerce company that sells sleep
products online and in retail locations. The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: 631 367-7100
Facsimile: 631 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@regrdlaw.com
- and -
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: 858 914-2001
Facsimile: 858 914-2002
E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
achang@bottinilaw.com
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com
CASPER SLEEP: Faces Mattern Securities Suit Over IPO Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATT MATTERN, Indvidually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CASPER SLEEP INC., PHILIP KRIM, GREGORY MACFARLANE,
NEIL PARIKH, ANTHONY FLORENCE, DIANE IRVINE, KAREN KATZ, JACK
LAZAR, BENJAMIN LERER, DANI REISS, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC,
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO., LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, BOFA SECURITIES INC., UBS
SECURITIES LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., PIPER SANDLER & CO.,
AND GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES , LLC, Case No. 653112/2020 (N.Y. Sup.,
New York Cty., July 15, 2020), alleges violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 relating to the precipitous decline in the Company's
share price.
The lawsuit is a securities class action brought on behalf of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired Casper common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and
incorporated Prospectus (the Offering Documents) issued in
connection with Casper's February 2020 initial public offering
(IPO).
The Plaintiff alleges that the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the IPO contained materially incorrect or
misleading statements and/or omitted material information that was
required to be disclosed. The Plaintiff alleges claims arising
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
On March 19, 2020, Casper filed a Form 8-K, announcing its
financial results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2019.
Among other things, the Company reported net revenues of $439.3
million, which was an increase of $81.4 million, or 22.7%, compared
to $357.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. This was a
substantial decrease from the 44.5% compound annual growth rate
touted in the Offering Documents.
The Form 8-K disclosed that direct-to-consumer sales increased
13.0% from 2018. This was substantially lower than the prior year,
as disclosed in the Offering Documents, when direct-to-consumer
sales increased 41.9% compared to 2017.
After reaching a high of $15.85 per share, Casper's stock price
plummeted. At the time this action was commenced, the stock was
trading at approximately $8.00 per share--a 33% decline from the
Company's $12 IPO price.
The Plaintiff purchased Casper common stock pursuant or traceable
to the Offering Documents and the IPO and has been damaged
thereby.
Casper Sleep is a public e-commerce company that sells sleep
products online and in retail locations. The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: 631 367-7100
Facsimile: 631 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@regrdlaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER LLC
1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
Atlanta, GA 30338
Telephone: 770 392-0090
Facsimile: 770 392-0029
E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
CENTENNIAL RESOURCE: Maillet Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as GORDON MAILLET, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CENTENNIAL
RESOURCE PRODUCTION, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00028-DC-DF (W.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional
certification of a collective and approving court-authorized notice
of this action on behalf of the following Fair Labor Standards Act
class:
"all Mud Engineers, Completions Supervisors, and Drilling
Superintendents employed by, or working on behalf of,
Centennial who were classified as independent contractors and
paid a day-rate with no overtime during the past three
years."
According to the complaint, Centennial did not pay its wellsite
contractor workforce overtime as required by FLSA. Instead,
Centennial misclassifies these workers as independent contractors
and pays them a set daily rate with no overtime pay. Centennial's
pay practice violates this FLSA because these workers should have
received overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a week.
Centennial operates as an oil and natural gas company. The Company
provides oil and gas exploration and production services, as well
as focuses on the development of natural gas reserves.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Gowen Suit Hits Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------
James Gowen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L.
Eberly and Gail S. Page, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02758, (E.D.
N.Y., June 22, 2020), seeks compensatory damages, including
interest thereon, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this
action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and
further relief for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
Chembio develops diagnostic solutions and offers products for
treatment, detection and diagnosis of infectious diseases. Its Dual
Path Platform (DPP) allows for rapid diagnostic testing of a
variety of chemical substances.
In March 2020, Chembio entered into a partnership with LumiraDx
Limited to develop a diagnostic test for the detection of the
COVID-19 virus and IgM and IgG antibodies on both of their DPP
platforms. Chembio's shares jumped from a closing price of $3.10
per share on March 11, 2020 to a high of $15.54 per share on April
24, 2020, an increase of more than 400%. However, on June 16, 2020,
after the market closed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
issued a press release disclosing that it had revoked Chembio's
Emergency Use Authorization for the DPP COVID-19 Test "due to
performance concerns with the accuracy of the test" alleging that
it generated a higher than expected rate of false results and
higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the
device. Chembio shares declined from a closing price on June 16,
2020 of $9.93 per share to close at $3.89 per share on June 17,
2020, a decline of $6.04 per share, or over 60%, on unusually heavy
trading volume of over 25 million shares.
Gowen purchased Chembio publicly-traded securities at artificially
inflated prices and lost substantially. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
Andrea Farah, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Email: bhart@lowey.com
afarah@lowey.com
- and -
David P. Abel, Esq.
U.S. MARKET ADVISORS LAW GROUP PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 440
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 274-0237
Email: dabel@usmarketlaw.com
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CEMI)
("Chembio") on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired
Chembio common stock between March 12, 2020 and June 16, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Important Deadline:Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Chembio common stock during the Class Period may, no later than
August 17, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/chembio-diagnostics-inc-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=chembio.
According to the complaint, Chembio develops diagnostic solutions
and offers products for treatment, detection, and diagnosis of
infectious diseases. Chembio claims to have developed and patented
a new and innovative technology called the Dual Path Platform
("DPP®"), which allows for rapid diagnostic testing of a variety
of chemical substances. On its website, Chembio maintains that its
products "meet the highest standards for accuracy and superior
performance to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases" and
that its "innovative solutions, like the Chembio Dual Path Platform
(DPP®), make [point-of-care] testing faster, more accurate, and
more cost effective."
On March 12, 2020, Chembio entered into a worldwide strategic
partnership with LumiraDx Limited, a company focused on developing,
manufacturing, and commercializing industry-leading point-of-care
diagnostic platforms, with the aim of developing a diagnostic test
for the detection of the COVID-19 virus and IgM and IgG antibodies
on both of their DPP® platforms (the "DPP COVID-19 Test").
Following this news, Chembio's shares jumped 65% during pre-market
trading. Throughout the Class Period, the defendants touted their
progress in developing the DPP COVID-19 Test, representing that it:
(i) successfully aided in determining current or past exposure to
the COVID-19 virus; (ii) provided high sensitivity and specificity;
and (iii) was 100% accurate. The defendants' overly positive
progress updates convinced some entities to place purchase orders
for the DPP COVID-19 Tests worth millions of dollars. These events
further boosted the price of Chembio shares, including on March 20,
2020, when Chembio's shares rose 54%. Chembio's representations
ultimately drove its stock from a closing price of $3.10 per share
on March 11, 2020, to a Class Period high of $15.54 per share on
April 24, 2020, an increase of more than 400%.
The complaint alleges that, on June 16, 2020, after the market
closed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a
press release disclosing that it had revoked Chembio's Emergency
Use Authorization ("EUA") for its DPP COVID-19 Test. In a public
announcement, the FDA informed that its decision was "due to
performance concerns with the accuracy of the test." More
specifically, the FDA informed that the DPP COVID-19 Test
"generate[d] a higher than expected rate of false results and
higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the
device." As a result, the FDA concluded that the "test's benefits
no longer outweigh its risks." The next day, on June 17, 2020,
Chembio publicly acknowledged the receipt of the FDA's June 16,
2020 letter and informed the public of the FDA's revocation of its
EUA. Following this news, Chembio shares declined from a closing
price on June 16, 2020 of $9.93 per share to close at $3.89 per
share on June 17, 2020, a decline of more than 60%.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that Chembio's DPP COVID-19 Test did not provide
high-quality results and there were material performance concerns
with the accuracy of its DPP COVID-19 Test.
If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll-free) or (610) 667-7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.
Chembio investors may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). [GN]
CHOU TEAM: Faces Reiners Suit Over Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------
Erica Reiners, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Chou Team Realty, LLC d/b/a MonsterLoans, a
California limited liability company, Lend Tech Loans, Inc., a
California corporation, Sean Cowell, an individual, Thomas Chou, an
individual, Mikael Van Loon, an individual, Jawad Nesheiwat, an
individual, and Eduardo Martinez, an individual, Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-06587 (C.D. Cal., July 23, 2020) alleges that
Defendants willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") by procuring consumer reports from Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. regarding consumers nationwide, absent any
permissible purpose, and using the consumer reports for
impermissible purposes by impermissibly reselling or distributing
the reports to entities who likewise do not possess any permissible
purpose for using or obtaining the reports.
According to the complaint, the scheme worked when Defendants,
acting in concert, created a sham entity known as Lend Tech to
obtain consumer reports from Experian under the guise that it
intended to solicit consumers with mortgage-related firm offers of
credit. However, Defendants never sent consumers any firm offers of
credit and never intended to send any such firm offers.
Rather, Defendants undertook to distribute the consumer reports
that they obtained about Plaintiff and the class members to student
loan consolidation entities who likewise lacked any permissible
purpose for obtaining the consumer reports. The student loan
consolidation entities would then utilize the reports to solicit
consumers for a fee-based document preparation service. Defendants
would then take a share in the profits (or equity) from these
student loan consolidation entities.
Chou Team Realty, LLC d/b/a MonsterLoans, is a California-based
mortgage lending company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron D. Aftergood, Esq.
THE AFTERGOOD LAW FIRM
1880 Century Park East, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 550-5221
Facsimile: (310) 496-2840
E-mail: aaron@aftergoodesq.com
- and -
Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 907-7628
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com
COBRA ACQUISITIONS: LeJeune Seeks to Certify Day-Rate Worker Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as EJ LEJEUNE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COBRA ACQUISITIONS
LLC; ESPADA LOGISTICS AND SECURITY GROUP, LLC; ESPADA CARIBBEAN
LLC; JAMES JORRIE; and JENNIFER GAY JORRIE, Case No.
5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC (W.D. Tex., Filed March 20, 2019), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to conditionally certify this
collective action and authorize notice to the potential class
members:
"all individuals who worked for, or on behalf of, Cobra and
Espada from January 21, 2017 through the present who were
paid a day-rate regardless of classification (the Day-Rate
Workers)."
On March 20, 2019, LeJeune filed this FLSA collective action
seeking unpaid overtime from Mammoth Energy Services, Inc., Cobra,
and Espada. Doc. LeJeune amended his Complaint to add Espada
Caribbean LLC (together "Espada"), James Jorrie, and Jennifer Gay
Jorrie on August 5, 2019. The Defendant filed a renewed Motion to
Dismiss on August 6, 2019.
Cobra is a construction company centering on the utility industry,
focusing on transmission and distribution networks. Espada provides
expert security measures, logistical processes, emergency
evacuations, and institutional training. To operate, Cobra and
Espada employ security guards, medics, and other relief workers.
They classify some as independent contractors and others as W-2
employees, but pay them all on a day-rate basis.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@ mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
E-mail: jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
aortiz@fslawfirm.com
COLONY CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders Colony Capital, Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
CLNY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/colony-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8120&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Colony Capital, Inc. (NYSE:CLNY)
CLNY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 9, 2019 -
May 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/colony-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8120&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Colony
Capital, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Colony's sale of its industrial
real estate portfolio and the bifurcation of Colony Credit Real
Estate's portfolio were foreseeably likely to negatively impact
Colony's financial and operating results; (ii) certain of Colony's
remaining portfolio companies carried unsustainable levels of debt
secured by hotels and healthcare-related properties and were thus
at a significant risk of default; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]
COMPASS GROUP: Faces Wage-and-Hour Suit from Meola and Sanchez
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MEOLA and OSCAR SANCHEZ, individuals, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs.
COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., a Corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
Inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00025850-CU-OE-CTL (Calif.
Super., San Diego County, July 24, 2020) is an action against the
Defendants alleging violation of the California Labor Code on
account of its failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, provide
meal and rest periods, supply accurate itemized statements,
reimburse employee for required expenses, and provide wages when
due.
Plaintiffs bring this Class Action on behalf of themselves and a
California Class of agents, servants and/or employees, in order to
fully compensate the class for their losses incurred during the
period caused by Defendant's policy and practice which failed to
lawfully compensate these employees for all their overtime worked.
Defendant's policy and practice alleged herein is an unlawful,
unfair and deceptive business practice whereby Defendant retained
and continues to retain wages due Plaintiffs and the other members
of the class. Plaintiffs and the other members of the class seek an
injunction enjoining such conduct by Defendant in the future,
relief for the named Plaintiffs and the other members of the class
who have been economically injured by Defendant's past and current
unlawful conduct, and all other appropriate legal and equitable
relief.
Compass Group USA, Inc. is a California-based company which engages
in the preparation of food and drinks for on-premise consumption.
The company also offers catering, dining and support services for a
variety of events.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
COMPLETE BUSINESS: Petropangea Sues Over Illegal Loanshark Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Petropangea, Inc.; Volunteer Pharmacy, Inc.; Johnny Harrison; and
Toby C. Frost, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC; FAST ADVANCE
FUNDING, LLC; MCA CAPITAL FUND I, LLC; MCA NATIONAL FUND, LLC;
RECRUITING AND MARKETING RESOURCES, INC.; FULL SPECTRUM PROCESSING,
INC., Case No. 200702013 (Pa. Com. Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., July
29, 2020), seeks to save small businesses and their owners from
financial ruin at the hands of an unlawful and unscrupulous
loansharking scheme.
The Plaintiffs allege that the scheme is crushing small businesses
all over the country and devastating the lives of their individual
owners. The Plaintiffs assert that the extortionate collection
tactics are so outrageous and unscrupulous that an employee of one
these small business victims recently committed suicide immediately
after being berated and accused of fraud by one of the Defendants'
collections personnel.
According to the complaint, Joseph LaForte, Jr., operates the
unlawful loansharking scheme through, among other fronts,
Defendants CBSG, Fast Advance, Full Spectrum, RMR, MCA National
Fund, LLC, New York Unity Factor, LLC and MCA Capital
(collectively, the "Enterprise"). The Enterprise preys upon
individual owners of small businesses, who are in desperate need of
funding and cannot obtain financing from traditional lenders.
The Plaintiffs contend that the interest rates charged are
unconscionable and deceptive. The interest rates charged to the
Plaintiffs are as high as 875%. When these small businesses
ultimately can no longer afford to pay the unlawful and/or
unconscionable interest rates charged, the Enterprise uses
extortionate collection practices that are designed to embarrass,
intimidate and extort their victims into paying even if the victim
has to borrow, pay from individual sources, or sell their personal
assets, including their homes.
In conducting its illegal loansharking scheme, the Plaintiffs note,
the Enterprise disguises its predatory, high-interest loans through
so-called factoring agreements, which purport to purchase a
merchant's future receivables. The Plaintiffs now bring this class
action in order to recompense the many thousands of similarly
situated victims that have been preyed upon by the Enterprise
through their predatory and unlawful loansharking scheme.
Plaintiff Petropangea, Inc., is a Texas corporation with a
principal place of business in located in Texas.
Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc., doing business as Par
Funding, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located in the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shane R. Heskin, Esq.
WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
1650 Market Street, Suite 1800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 864-6329
Email: heskins@whiteandwilliams.com
CORNELIANI USA: Guglielmo Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corneliani USA, Inc.
The case is captioned as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Corneliani USA, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05362-PAE-DCF (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
Corneliani is an Italian menswear manufacturer best known for its
suits and sportcoats.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
CYTOSPORT MUSCLE: Oct. 19 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Moritz, writing for KSAT.com, reports that you may be able
to pump up your wallet if you bought certain CytoSport Muscle Milk
drinks or protein powders.
A lawsuit alleges the company made misleading claims about protein
content or surrounding the term "lean." The company did not admit
wrongdoing but settled for $12 million.
For ready-to-drink shake products purchased between Jan. 23, 2011,
and May 5, 2020, you may receive up to $25 without receipts or more
with proof of purchase. For various protein powders purchased
between Jan. 23, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2018, you may receive $25
without proof of purchase or more with proof.
The deadline to file a claim is Oct. 19. The website to do that is
www.leanproteinsettlement.com.
The company does not admit to any wrongdoing by settling these
claims. [GN]
DAVI TRANSPORTATION: Gaither Default Judgment Bid Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TREKELL GAITHER, et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. DAVI TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. ELH-18-1447 (D.
Md.), Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for default judgment against Davi
Transportation.
The case concerns claims of denial of overtime and hourly wages
lodged by non-emergency medical transportation "paratransit
drivers." Plaintiffs Gaither, Whitney Davis, Wayne Flemming,
Crystal Kendricks, and Robert Lemon filed suit against Defendants
Davi Transportation; James Davis, the owner of Davi Transportation,
and Transdev Services, Inc., formerly known as Veolia
Transportation Services, Inc.
By an Aug. 2, 2018 letter, the Plaintiffs notified the Court that
Davis filed for bankruptcy on Dec. 5, 2017. The Plaintiffs
asserted that the matter may proceed against other Defendants, who
have not filed for bankruptcy. On Dec. 3, 2018, the Plaintiffs and
Transdev jointly moved the Court to approve their Settlement
Agreement, in which Transdev agreed to pay the Plaintiffs a total
of $130,000, in addition to $30,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.
The Court approved the Settlement Agreement.
In light of the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs and Transdev
stipulated to the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims against
Transdev, with prejudice. By marginal Order on Dec. 6, 2018, the
Court approved the parties' stipulation of dismissal.
Davi Transportation was served on June 25, 2018 but, it never
responded to the suit. On Aug. 8, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default against Davi Transportation,
which was entered by the Clerk on Dec. 4, 2018. And, on Jan. 30,
2019, the Plaintiffs moved for default judgment as to Davi
Transportation. Plaintiffs requested a total award of unpaid wages
and damages of $276,941.65, plus attorneys' fees and costs of
$26,776.03. The Court subsequently learned that the bankruptcy
court had granted a discharge to Mr. Davis on March 26, 2019,
thereby terminating the automatic stay.
In a June 25, 2019 Order, the Court directed the Plaintiffs to
submit a status report. In their report of July 9, 2019,
Plaintiffs asserted that granting default judgment as to Davi
Transportation while the litigation is stayed as to Mr. Davis is
appropriate because Defendant Davis and Defendant Davi
Transportation are joint employers of the Plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs claimed that joint employers are jointly and separately
liable for FLSA violations under the FLSA and Maryland wage and
hour laws.
Further, the Plaintiffs reported that the bankruptcy court
discharged most of Mr. Davis's debts, "including the claims of the
Plaintiffs." Therefore, the Plaintiffs stated that once the Court
issues a decision regarding default judgment as to Davi
Transportation, Mr. Davis will be the only remaining the Defendant
in the case, and the Plaintiffs will move to dismiss the action.
In particular, the Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"),
Sections 3-401 et seq. of the Labor and Employment Article
("L.E."); and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law
("MWCPL"). In addition, Plaintiffs claim violations of Baltimore
City Code. Numerous exhibits were appended to the suit.
According to the Complaint, the Plaintiffs drove vehicles owned by
Davi Transportation and Davis to transport "Medicaid recipients" in
the Baltimore City area, based on individualized routes created by
Transdev. The routes required the Plaintiffs to work shifts
lasting up to 15 hours, but the Defendants allegedly paid the
Plaintiffs only a few dollars for each pickup, and just one dollar
each time a person scheduled to be picked up was absent. As a
result, the Plaintiffs' hourly wages fell far below state and
federal minimum wage rates, and even further below Baltimore City's
living wage rates. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek recovery of unpaid
wages, damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
Now pending is the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for default
judgment against Davi Transportation. The motion is supported by a
memorandum of law and several exhibits. A copy of the Motion was
sent to Davi's resident agent, at the last known address.
On review, Judge Hollander opines that entry of default judgment is
appropriate as to Davi Transportation. As the Judge sees it, any
potential problem of inconsistent damage awards is no longer of
concern. It is because the bankruptcy court discharged Davis's
debt. As the Plaintiffs reported, the discharge extended to their
claims. Accordingly, there is no just reason for delay.
As to damages, the Plaintiffs request total unpaid wages and
damages in the amount of $276,941.65, apportioned among them in
individual judgments, as follows: $7,611.02 to Trekell Gaither;
$5,063.32 to Whitney Davis; $122,355.31 to Wayne Flemming;
$42,410.21 to Crystal Kendricks; and $99,501.76 to Robert Lemon.
Upon review of the submissions and the applicable statutes, the
Judge is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have established that Davi
Transportation violated the FLSA, the MWHL and the MWPCL for each
the Plaintiff, by failing to pay the required minimum wage and
overtime wages. In particular, Plaintiffs have established that
they were employed by the Defendant; they were not compensated for
all hours worked; the work was covered by the FLSA and Maryland
law; and Davi Transportation was an employer under the statutes.
However, the Judge declines to award damages under the Baltimore
City Code. The Plaintiffs candidly concede that they are unaware
of any court decision "examining the enforceability of the
Baltimore City Code's living wage ordinance" through the MWPCL. In
a footnote, they asked the Court to certify the question to the
Maryland Court of Appeals. The Judge declines to do so. Among
other reasons, the Plaintiffs expressly requested damages, in the
alternative, under Maryland law, and the award is consistent with
that express request. Moreover, the Judge is mindful that, under
the FLSA, the Plaintiffs are entitled only to double damages, not
treble damages. Yet, the Judge has approved the treble damage
request under Maryland law. A greater award seems excessive.
The Plaintiffs request legal fees and costs in the amount of
$26,776.03. Two firms represent them: the Public Justice Center
("PJC") and Outten & Golden LLP ("O&G"). PJC and O&G recovered
legal fees from Transdev in the total amount of $30,000. They seek
an additional award of $8,981 and $17,795.03, respectively. This
totals $26,776.03.
In the absence of any billing records, the Judge cannot properly
review the fee requests. For example, the Judge cannot determine
whether there was duplication of work or the necessity of the work.
Moreover, the lawyers have not explained why two entities were
involved in this case or what role each played in the case. To be
sure, Abrahamson asserts that O&G did not bill for any lawyer or
support staff who worked less than five hours on the case. But, it
does not mean that any lawyer actually performed a service that was
not billed.
O&G also seeks to recover costs of $997.03. In particular, it
requests reimbursement for court filing fees, service process fee,
printing and scanning, research, and mailing fees. These costs are
reasonable.
For the reasons stated, Jude Holander granted the Motion in part
and denied it in part. Specifically, the Judge awarded total
damages of $88,005.11, as set forth in the Order filed with her
Memorandum Opinion, and costs to O&G of $997.03. However, the
Judge denied the fee requests, without prejudice to the right of
the Plaintiffs to submit revised fee petitions.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/RlEIAp from Leagle.com.
DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in Former Calif. Employee's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended June 16, 2020 that discovery is ongoing in
the purported class action suit initiated by a former company
employee.
In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately
provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California
hourly employees.
Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its
defenses to this threatened class action and the individual claims.
Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes could
prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential
assessment of any damages on a class basis.
Del Taco said, "Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and
the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of
the unresolved matter. However, based on management's current
understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company
does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a probable or
estimable loss and should not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore,
Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the claim as of June 16,
2020."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. operates a chain of fast food
restaurants. The company consists of two separate Mexican fast-food
groups, 79 Del Taco units and 36 Taco Villa restaurants. The
company offers Mexican food items, such as tacos, burritos,
quesadillas, burgers, French fries, and soft drinks. The company
was incorporated in 1983 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Del Taco
Restaurants operates as a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co.
DENTAL CRAFTERS: Faces Mader Suit Over Unpaid OT and Meal Periods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDSAY MADER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DENTAL CRAFTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00676 (W.D. Wis., July 23, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failing to pay them for
meal periods during which they were not completely relieved of duty
or free from work for at least 30 consecutive minutes.
The Plaintiff worked as Computer-Aided Design (CAD) and
Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM) designer at the Defendant's
headquarters in Marshfield, Wisconsin from approximately November
2005 until June 10, 2020.
Dental Crafters, Inc. is a dental laboratory headquartered in
Marshfield, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
DHL EXPRESS: Lafayette Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRELLE LAFAYETTE, Individually, and on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated employees v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., Case
No. 2:20-cv-02521-JPM (W.D. Tenn., July 17, 2020), seeks to recover
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has had a common plan,
policy and/or practice of failing to compensate her and other
similarly situated hourly-paid warehouse employees for work they
performed prior to the beginning of their assigned and scheduled
shifts.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
warehouse employee at its Lamar Avenue facility in Memphis,
Tennessee.
DHL Express offers shipping, tracking and courier delivery
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
DYNASERV FLORIDA: Williams Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
JESUS WILLIAMS, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), Plaintiff v. DYNASERV FLORIDA LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-61454-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., July 17, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought
against Defendant for its alleged unlawful pay policy in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt landscaper from
October 22, 2019 until February 10, 2020.
Plaintiff claims that he worked in excess of 40 hours per week in
one or more workweeks while employed by Defendant. However,
Defendant did not properly compensated him for all the hours he
worked because Defendant often deducted one hour for a lunch break
even though he did not take a lunch break for longer than 30
minutes.
As a result, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff at the proper
overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular hourly rate for
all of the hours that he worked in excess of 40 during his
employment period.
Dynaserv Florida LLC is a full-service landscape and exterior
services company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Melissa Scott, Esq.
Jake Blumstein, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
805 East Broward Blvd., Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 871-0050
Emails: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
April@jordanrichardspllc.com
ECMOHO LIMITED: Johnson Fistel Launches Investigation into Company
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP, is investigating
potential claims against ECMOHO Limited for violations of federal
securities laws.
On or about November 8, 2019, ECMOHO sold about 4.4 million shares
of stock in its initial public stock offering (the "IPO"), at $10 a
share raising nearly $48 million in new capital. However, since the
IPO, ECMOHO stock has plunged, on July 18, 2020, the stock closed
at $2.10.
Specifically, Johnson Fistel's investigation seeks to determine
whether the Company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with its November 2019 IPO and subsequent
investor communications contained untrue statements of material
facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made therein not misleading concerning the Company's
business, and operations.
If you have information that could assist in this investigation, or
if you are an ECMOHO shareholder and are interested in learning
more about the investigation, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please
include a phone number.
About Johnson Fistel
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.
Jim Baker
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Tel: 619-814-4471
E-mail: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
FACTORY MUTUAL: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Rockhurst Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROCKHURST UNIVERSITY, and MARYVILLE UNIVERSITY, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated institutions of higher education
v. FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-00581-BCW
(W.D. Mo., July 23, 2020), alleges breach of contract arising from
the Defendant's refusal to pay claims related to COVID-19 as
required by its property insurance agreements it sold to the
Plaintiffs and other institutions of higher education.
According to the complaint, Rockhurst University and Maryville
University are two such institutions that have suffered substantial
financial losses due to COVID-19. Fortunately--or so they
thought--the Plaintiffs had purchased all-risk commercial property
insurance policies from the Defendant to protect them in the event
of an event such as COVID-19. The Policies provide hundreds of
millions of dollars in coverage for a wide variety of losses,
including loss of use of property, business interruption, and
property damage. The Policies contain specific provisions covering
communicable diseases.
The insurance industry--and this Defendant in particular--appears
to be taking a uniform approach to the current pandemic: deny
coverage even when the policy they drafted and offered to insureds,
and the policy paid for by the insureds, does not contain an
exclusion for pandemic--or virus-related losses, the Plaintiffs
assert.
Based on other lawsuits and other publicly available information,
it appears that the Defendant is taking a consistent position with
other insureds--including other higher education
institutions--across the country, according to the complaint.
Indeed, in March 2020, the Defendant began meeting with
representatives of colleges and universities and actively
discouraged those representatives from submitting claims for
coverage.
Rockhurst University is a private Jesuit university in Kansas City,
Missouri. Founded in 1901, it now serves over 3,000 students.
Rockhurst's 55-acre campus is located just blocks from Kansas
City's busy Country Club Plaza district and minutes from downtown.
Maryville University is a private university located in St. Louis,
Missouri. Maryville was founded in 1872 and serves over 10,000
students.
Factory Mutual Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company provides condos, healthcare, real estate, and retail
insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
Todd M. McGuire, Esq.
Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
Curtis Shank, Esq.
Abby E. McClellan, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: 816 714-7100
Facsimile: 816 714-7101
E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
mcguire@stuevesiegel.com
wilders@stuevesiegel.com
shank@stuevesiegel.com
mcclellan@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
John J. Schirger, Esq.
Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
MILLER SCHIRGER LLC
4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 561-6500
Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
mlytle@millerschirger.com
jfeierabend@millerschirger.com
- and -
J. Kent Emison, Esq.
LANGDON & EMISON LLC
911 Main Street, PO Box 220
Lexington, MO 64067
Telephone: (660) 259-6175
Facsimile: (660) 259-4571
E-mail: kent@lelaw.com
- and -
Richard F. Lombardo, Esq.
SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN, P.C.
2001 Wyandotte Street
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: 816-931-0500
Facsimile: 816-931-5775
E-mail: rlombardo@sls-law.com
FIFTH THIRD: Refuses to Pay for PPP Agents' Services, Picker Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Picker & Associates, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case
No. 1:20-cv-04462 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2020), seeks compensation
for the Defendant's refusal to pay the Plaintiff and a large number
of other similarly-situated agents for the services they rendered
to recipients of Small Business Administration loans, as required
under the CARES Act.
Congress passed the CARES Act on March 27, 2020, to provide
economic relief to workers and small businesses suffering economic
hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Part of the CARES Act, known
as the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), was designed to keep
small businesses afloat and avoid massive layoffs by distributing
sufficient funds to cover up to eight weeks of payroll and other
expenses through the Small Business Administration ("SBA").
Congress provided that PPP loans would be disbursed through
SBA-approved lenders, though the loans themselves would be
guaranteed by the federal government. In exchange for their
participation, lenders would receive a percentage of each loan as
an origination fee. The amount of each loan would depend on the
applicant's historical payroll information, and so Congress
understood that applicants would often require the help of agents,
such as accountants, to prepare the loan applications. But Congress
did not want the process to be delayed by fee negotiations between
lenders and agents, nor for small businesses already in economic
distress to have to pay agents themselves. Accordingly, the PPP
regulations provide that lenders will pay the agents a specified
percentage of their origination fee; agents may not charge
applicants for this work.
However, now that PPP loans have been disbursed to borrowers, Fifth
Third has refused to pay Picker and other similarly-situated agents
their statutorily mandated fees, the Plaintiff avers. Accordingly,
Picker brings this class action lawsuit to recover fees for the
work he and other agents performed assisting borrowers with PPP
loan applications submitted to Fifth Third which should have been
compensated by Fifth Third.
Plaintiff Picker & Associates, LLC, is an accounting firm with its
principal place of business located in Buffalo Grove, Illinois.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association, is a federally chartered
and FDIC insured bank headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, with 48
branches in Chicago, Illinois, and many more branches throughout
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Phone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
- and -
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
Roger N. Heller, Esq.
Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Phone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
- and -
Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq.
222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201-2379
Phone: (615) 313-9000
Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
- and -
Seth Yohalem, Esq.
WASKOWSKI JOHNSON YOHALEM LLP
954 West Washington Boulevard, Suite 322
Chicago, IL 60607
Phone: (312) 278-3153
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Email: gklinger@masonllp.com
FIRST WATCH: Hobbs Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------
Erica Hobbs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FW of Tennessee 1, LLC and Capstone
Concepts, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00168 (E.D. Tenn., June
22, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, as well as interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Defendants operate as "First Watch" Restaurants where Hobbs was
employed as a tipped server but spent a significant amount of time
spent performing non-tipped duties. She was paid lower than the
required tip-credit rate but was deducted a tip credit because
their non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, thus allowing
First Watch to pay the tip-credit instead of the minimum wage rate.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 759-1745
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
FUSION CONSULTING: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fusion Consulting Services LLC and Does 1
through 10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05548 (C.D. Cal., June 23,
2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages
and all other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
Fusion Consulting operates as Remittance Capital Management.
Fabricant claims to have received auto-dialed telemarketing calls
from them on his phone. Fabricant is registered in the National
Do-Not-Call registry. [BN]
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
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
GHG-THE FITNESS: Skiba Seeks Unpaid Salaried Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Danae Skiba, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. GHG-THE FITNESS GROUP, LLC d/b/a GOLD'S GYM HOUSTON; and GOLD'S
GYM FRANCHISING LLC; Case No. 4:20-cv-02656 (S.D. Tex., July 29,
2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to
recover unpaid salaried wages, or in the alternative unpaid
overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs.
The Defendants misclassified non-exempt employees as exempt
employees in an effort to avoid compensating said employees for the
excess hours worked over 40 hours per week, according to the
complaint. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff's
wages at time-and-a-half for hours that they worked over 40 hours
in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a purported
salaried employee under the "Fitness Manager" title at the Humble,
Texas--"Parks Lake" location.
The Defendants provide fitness facilities and personal training
services to individuals at their various locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabrielle O. Ilochi, Esq.
THE ILOCHI LAW FIRM
11601 Shadow Creek Pkwy., #111-325
Pearland, TX 77584
Phone: (713) 487-9072
Email: gabrielle@ilochilaw.com
GLOBAL UPRISING: Cruz Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Buyers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHAEL CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GLOBAL UPRISING, PBC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05654 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant discriminates against
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, by
failing to provide them full and equal access to its website. The
Defendant's website, www.ahlemeyewear.com, lacks a variety of
features and accommodations to assist and allow blind buyers to
browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions and prices,
and peruse the numerous items offered for sale. These access
barriers include, but not limited to: (1) similar title elements on
web pages, (2) incorrect label element or title attribute for each
field on the website, and (3) inadequate descriptions on its
content. The Defendant's failure and refusal to correct these
access barriers to its website denied the Plaintiff and Class
members a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek a permanent injunction to make
a change to the Defendant's corporate policies and practices so
that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Global Uprising, PBC is a sunglasses and eyewear company that owns
and operates the website, www.ahlemeyewear.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
GREENSKY INC: Faces Wright Suit in Florida Over Undisclosed Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXISS WRIGHT, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. GREENSKY, INC., a corporation; GREENSKY, LLC,
a limited liability company; GREENSKY HOLDINGS, LLC, a limited
liability company; GREENSKY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a limited
liability company; Case No. CACE-20-011646 (Fla. Cir., Broward
Cty., July 17, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by GreenSky's
failure to comply with state loan brokering and credit services
laws relating to certain undisclosed fees.
The Plaintiff contends that despite not being licensed to do so
(i.e., none of the GreenSky entities have registered to do business
and/or be licensed in the State of Florida as a CSOA or a loan
broker), GreenSky brokers and facilitates loans for consumers
across the state, extending credit without providing required
disclosures, and charging substantial undisclosed fees, in clear
violation of Florida laws.
In the summer of 2016, Ms. Wright purchased a new air-conditioning
system, which purchase was financed by the GreenSky program. Per
the terms of her GreenSky installment loan agreement, the APR was
0.00%. GreenSky took a "merchant fee" of approximately 16% of
principal on loan. The principal amount of Wright's loan was
$9,522. Thus, GreenSky took a "merchant fee" of about $1,500 on
Wright's loan. This amount was not disclosed to her, says the
complaint.
GreenSky has built a billion-dollar business partnering with
lending institutions and merchants to offer point-of-sale loans to
consumers who wish to finance home improvement projects and
repairs, solar-panel installation, and elective surgery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
NEWHART LEGAL, P.A.
P.O. Box 1351
Loxahatchee, FL 33470
Telephone: (561) 331-1806
Facsimile: (561) 473-2946
E-mail: darren@newhartlegal.com
- and -
Bryce B. Bell, Esq.
Mark W. Shmitz, Esq.
Andrew R. Taylor, Esq.
BELL LAW, LLC
2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 886-8206
Facsimile: (816) 817-8500
E-mail:Bryce@BellLawKC.com
MS@BellLawKC.com
AT@BellLawKC.com
GSE SYSTEMS: Tentative Settlement Reached in Joyce Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
GSE Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a tentative
understanding has been reached in the putative class action suit
entitled, Joyce v. Absolute Consulting, Inc..
On March 29, 2019, a former employee of Absolute Consulting, Inc.,
filed a putative class action against Absolute and the company in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (case
number 1:19 cv 00868 RDB). The lawsuit alleged the plaintiff was
not properly compensated for overtime hours worked.
The company been dismissed from the case, but Absolute remains a
party and continues to deny allegations and defend this litigation
with GSE's assistance.
In July 2020, mediation occurred between Absolute and the
plaintiff, at which the parties reached a tentative understanding
but not yet a final settlement or conclusion. The parties will
continue to work together to finalize a settlement based on the
terms of their understanding, which will then be presented for
approval to the court.
GSE said, "We are unable to conclude regarding the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or if this matter is remote or probable."
GSE Systems, Inc. provides simulation, training, and engineering
solutions to the power and process industries in the United States,
Asia, Europe, and internationally. It operates through two
segments, Performance Improvement Solutions and Nuclear Industry
Training and Consulting. GSE Systems, Inc. was founded in 1994 and
is headquartered in Sykesville, Maryland.
HALLMARK SHELL: Gary Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Gary, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hallmark Shell, LLC and Ty Hallmark,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00271 (E.D. Tex., June 22, 2020), seeks
to recover wages and other damages to which they are entitled to
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Hallmark Shell does business under the name "Hallmark Lawn &
Landscape," providing residential, commercial and industrial
landscape, lawn maintenance and irrigation services. Gary has been
employed by Hallmark from late 2017 or early 2018 through the
present as a landscape worker. Gary claims to be misclassified as
an independent contractor, thus denied overtime pay despite
regularly working more than forty hours in a workweek. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
Amanda E. McGowen
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
amcgowen@bohrerbrady.com
HAMILTON BEACH: Bid to Dismiss Stockholder's Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. (HBBHC ) said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020 that the company's
motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by an owner of
the company's class A common stock, is pending.
On May 21, 2020 an owner of HBBHC class A common stock filed a
class action complaint against HBBHC and the Company's Chief
Executive and Chief Financial officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of investors
who acquired HBBHC common stock between February 27, 2020 and May
8, 2020.
The claims pertain to the accounting irregularities involving a
Mexican subsidiary of the Company that were announced in the Form
12b-25 filed by the Company on May 8, 2020.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit and has
filed a motion to dismiss the claims.
The Company will vigorously defend against plaintiff’s claims.
Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. designs and manufactures kitchen and
household appliances. The Company offers blenders, iced tea makers,
can openers, indoor grills, juice extractors, deep fryers, kettles,
drink mixers, ovens, cookers, and food choppers. Hamilton Beach
Brands serves restaurants and hotels in the United States.
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Good Times Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
GOOD TIMES BARBERSHOP and RAVIVE HEALTH AND VITALITY, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. and
SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01403-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., July 22, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of contract under the Business
Income, Civil Authority, and Extra Expense Coverage and unfair
business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have denied the
insurance claims of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated policyholders under the Business Income, Civil Authority,
and Extra Expense Coverage. The Plaintiffs and Class members
purchased commercial property insurance from the Defendants to
protect their businesses from actual business losses incurred when
business operations are involuntarily suspended, interrupted, or
curtailed because of direct physical loss of or damage to the
property. They incurred substantial business losses following the
closure of their businesses to comply with the state government's
stay-at-home orders to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Despite the
provision of business interruption coverage in these policies, the
Defendants are denying their obligation to pay for business income
losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the
physical loss and damage to the insureds' property arising from the
COVID-19 Civil Authority Orders.
Good Times Barbershop is a barbershop with its principal place of
business in Imperial Beach, County of San Diego, California.
Ravive Health and Vitality, LLC is a wellness center with its
principal place of business in San Diego, California.
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is an investment and
insurance company with its principal place of business in Hartford,
Connecticut.
Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. is an insurance provider with its
principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amber L. Eck, Esq.
Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
Robert Prine, Esq.
HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 2050
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 342-8000
Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com
alreenh@haelaw.com
robertp@haelaw.com
HARTFORD FIRE: Restaurants Sue Over Denied Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
SA HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC; 1000 MADISON AVENUE LLC; ASTORIA CAKES
LLC; CAFE FOCACCIA, INC.; REALTEK LLC; SA MIDTOWN LLC; BAILEY'S
RESTAURANT LLC; SA SPECIAL EVENTS, INC.; SASE LLC; EIGHTY THIRD AND
FIRST LLC; 265 LAFAYETTE RISTORANTE LLC; FELICE GOLD STREET LLC; SA
61ST MANAGEMENT LLC; SA YORK AVE LLC; SA THIRD AVE CAFE LLC; SABF
LLC; FELICE CHAMBERS LLC; and FELICE WATER STREET LLC, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-01033-VLB (D. Conn., July 22, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract under the Business
Income, Civil Authority, and Extra Expense Coverage of Hartford
policies.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated Hartford policyholders, allege that the Defendant denied
its obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered
expenses incurred by policyholders, including the Plaintiffs, for
the physical loss and damage to the insured property from measures
put in place by civil authorities. The Plaintiffs and Class members
incurred substantial business losses following the closure of their
restaurants as a result of the stay-at-home orders imposed by
government entities in the United States to prevent the spread of
COVID-19. They purchased all-risk commercial property insurance
from the Defendant to protect themselves against losses from
catastrophic events. Hartford policies promise to indemnify
policyholders for actual business losses incurred when business
operations are involuntarily suspended, interrupted, curtailed,
when access to the premises is prohibited because of direct
physical loss or damage to the property, or by a civil authority
order that restricts or prohibits access to the property. This
coverage is commonly known as business interruption coverage and is
standard in most all-risk commercial property insurance policies.
However, Hartford does not intend to cover losses caused by the
closure orders as part of the business interruption coverage and
argued that the Plaintiffs' properties had not suffered any direct
physical loss and their losses were excluded by the bacteria and
virus exclusion endorsement of the policy.
SA Hospitality Group, LLC is a holding company that owns and
operates a number of restaurants in New York and Florida, with its
principal place of business in New York, New York.
1000 Madison Avenue LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA
Hospitality Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.
Astoria Cakes LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA Hospitality
Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in New York, New
York.
Cafe Foccacia, Inc. is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA
Hospitality Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.
Realtek LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA Hospitality Group,
LLC, with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
SA Midtown LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA Hospitality
Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in New York, New
York.
Bailey's Restaurant LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA
Hospitality Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.
SA Special Events, Inc. is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA
Hospitality Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.
SASE LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA Hospitality Group,
LLC, with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
Eighty Third and First LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA
Hospitality Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.
265 Lafayette Ristorante LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA
Hospitality Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.
Felice Gold Street LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA
Hospitality Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.
SA 61st Management LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA
Hospitality Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.
SA York Avenue LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA Hospitality
Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in New York, New
York.
SA Third Avenue Cafe LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA
Hospitality Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.
SABF LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA Hospitality Group,
LLC, with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
Felice Chambers LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA
Hospitality Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.
Felice Water Street LLC is a restaurant and subsidiary of SA
Hospitality Group, LLC, with its principal place of business in
Brooklyn, New York.
Hartford Fire Insurance Company is an insurance provider with its
principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (212) 584-0700
- and –
Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 584-0700
- and –
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
- and –
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
- and –
Paul J. Geller, Esq.
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
HARVEST MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses Schafer Case Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an Order dismissing the case captioned MAGEN SCHAFER, an
individual, for herself and all members of the putative class,
Plaintiff, v. HARVEST MANAGEMENT SUB, LLC, a Delaware Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.
2:19-cv-09053 CJC (AGRx). (C.D. Cal.)
The entire action is dismissed without prejudice and without notice
to the putative class. Each side is to bear its own attorneys' fees
and costs.
The dismissal of the case will have no res judicata or collateral
estoppel effect should any claim be brought by any other individual
or entity, including claims identical or substantially similar to
Plaintiff's claims in this case.
A full-text copy of the District Court's January 16, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/qqqkkox from Leagle.com
Magen Schafer, an indivdual, for herself and all members of the
putative class, Plaintiff, represented by R. Rex Parris , Parris
Law Firm, 43364 10th St W, Lancaster, CA 93534-6002, John M.
Bickford - jbickford@parrislawyers.com - Parris Law Firm, Kitty
Szeto - kszeto@parrislawyers.com - Parris Law Firm & Ryan Andrew
Crist , Parris Law Firm, 43364 10th St W, Lancaster, CA 93534-6002
Harvest Management Sub, LLC & Holiday AL Management SUB, LLC,
formerly known as Doe 1, Defendants, represented by John R.
Giovannone - jgiovannone@cdflaborlaw.com - Carothers Disante and
Freudenberger LLP & Allison Ocampo Chua - achua@cdflaborlaw.com -
Carothers Disante and Freudenberger LLP.
HERC HOLDINGS: Appeal to Revive Ramirez Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Herc Holdings Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the appeal from the
judgment dismissing the class action entitled, Pedro Ramirez, Jr.
v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., is still pending.
In November 2013, a putative shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
The complaint alleged that Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omission of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through
November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees.
In June 2014, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings'
motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to
amend the complaint a second time. In November 2014, plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class
period and made allegations that were not substantively very
different than the allegations in the prior complaint.
In early 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. In July 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion
to dismiss without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to file a third
amended complaint. In August 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint which included additional allegations, named additional
then-current and former officers as defendants and expanded the
putative class period to extend from February 14, 2013 to July 16,
2015.
In November 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint. The plaintiff then sought leave to add a new plaintiff
because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The
court granted plaintiff leave to file a fourth amended complaint to
add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1,
2016.
Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
fourth amended complaint with prejudice on March 24, 2016.
In April 2017, the court granted Hertz Holdings' and the individual
defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the action with
prejudice. In May 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and, in
June 2018, oral argument was conducted before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In September 2018, the court affirmed the dismissal of the action
with prejudice. On February 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to
set aside the judgment against it, and for leave to file a fifth
amended complaint.
The proposed amended complaint would add allegations related to New
Hertz's December 31, 2018 settlement with the SEC that, among other
things, ordered New Hertz to cease and desist from violating
certain of the federal securities laws and imposed a civil penalty
of $16.0 million.
On February 26, 2019, New Hertz filed an opposition to plaintiff's
motion for relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended
complaint. On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a reply in support of
that motion.
On September 30, 2019, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended complaint.
On October 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and appellate briefing
was completed in March 2020.
Herc Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
equipment rental supplier. It rents aerial, earthmoving, material
handling, trucks and trailers, air compressors, compaction, and
lighting equipment, as well as generators, and safety supplies and
expendables; and provides ProSolutions, an industry specific
solution based services, such as pumping solutions, power
generation, climate control, remediation and restoration, and
studio and production equipment. Herc Holdings Inc. is based in
Bonita Springs, Florida.
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Won't Pay Loan Agents' Fees, Prinzo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PRINZO & ASSOCIATES LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES INC.; HUNTINGTON
NATIONAL BANK; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-01061-WSS (W.D. Pa., July 15, 2020), seeks compensation
from the Defendants, who refuse to comply with the CARES Act that
requires it to pay out of the compensation it received for
processing Paycheck Protection Program loans, for services Prinzo
and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of recipients
of Small Business Administration emergency loans.
On March 27, 2020, Congress passed the SBA's PPP which initially
authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small
businesses to cover payroll and other expenses (PPP I). After the
initial funds quickly dried up, Congress added $310 billion
additional dollars to the program (PPP II).
The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing
business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval.
Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a
generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the
requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee
owed to the loan applicant's agent (e.g., attorney or accountant).
Huntington operates more than 800 branches, across seven states and
has reported approval of approximately 35,283 PPP applications
totaling approximately $6.5 billion in borrowed funds. The average
PPP loan approved by the Defendants was approximately $183,067.
Assuming a conservative average fee of four percent, Huntington
has, accordingly, been allocated over $260 million in origination
fees, from which it was required to pay the agents, who assisted
the borrowers in submitting applications.
However, the Plaintiff asserts, the Defendants apparently decided
that they do not need to complete the final step of the process and
based on information and belief have refused to pay the agents, who
assisted PPP loan recipients with their applications. This practice
seemed to be a deliberate scheme from the beginning as even though
they were required to pay agents that assisted in the application
process, the Defendants did not set up a structure or ask any
questions to determine whether borrowers utilized an agent in
completing applications, the Plaintiff contends.
Prinzo is a Certified Public Accounting firm organized in
Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business located in
McMurray, Pennsylvania.
Huntington is a bank holding company incorporated in Columbus,
Ohio, which provides banking services through branches in seven
states, including more than 50 in Pennsylvania, through its
subsidiary, Huntington National Bank.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 985-9177
Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
- and -
Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 737-9981
E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com
rdm@mccunewright.com
mmv@mccunewright.com
tqn@mccunewright.com
IDEAL HOME: Faces Prieto Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Prieto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IDEAL HOME HEALTH INC., ALEX LITMAN AND LISETTE PEREZ,
as individuals, Case No. 1:20-cv-03414 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants to recover damages for their
egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws
arising out of the Plaintiff's employment.
Although the Plaintiff worked for 84 hours or more per week during
his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant
violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law, according to the complaint.
The Defendants also willfully failed to post notices of the minimum
wage and overtime wages requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employees as required by both the NYLL and the
FLSA.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a coordinator.
IDEAL HOME HEALTH INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of
New York with a principal executive office located in Bronx, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
INTERSTATE HOTELS: Faces Strojnik Suit Over Inaccessibility Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Strojnik, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated and the general public v. INTERSTATE HOTELS & RESORTS,
INC. dba COURTYARD LOS ANGELES PASADENA/MONROVIA; GRAND OAK TREE,
LLC dba OAK TREE INN; VISIONS HOTELS, LLC dba QUALITY INN NEAR CITY
OF HOPE; Case No. 20GDCV00621 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July
29, 2020), is brought under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act,
California Civil Code, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
California Disabled Persons Act arising from the Defendants'
misrepresentation of the accessibility of certain areas in their
hotels.
The Plaintiff reviewed the Defendants' Web sites to determine
which, if any, adequately and accurately disclosed and identified
the accessibility features in their hotels. One of the
representations on the accessibility Web site is that various
areas, including the business center, the fitness center,
registration desk and restaurants and lodges are accessible from
public entrance. The Plaintiff contends that this representation
was false because these areas were not accessible by virtue of lack
of passenger loading zone and otherwise inaccessible routes with no
signage to accessible routes.
Another representation on the accessibility Web site was that the
pool was accessible. The Plaintiff contends that this
representation was false because the pool deck around the pool lift
is inaccessible. Courtyard's misrepresentations were made with the
intent that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated rely
thereon. The Plaintiff justifiably relied on Courtyard's
representations regarding accessibility and was damaged, thereby,
says the complaint.
Plaintiff Peter Strojnik is an immigrant, a disabled veteran and a
senior citizen.
Interstate Hotels and Resorts, Inc., owns, operates, leases or
leases to a lodging business located in Monrovia, California, under
the name Courtyard Los Angeles.
The Plaintiff, of Phoenix, Arizona, appears pro se.[BN]
JACKSON CITY, TN: Cockrell Sues Over Unpaid Meal Periods
--------------------------------------------------------
BARRY M. COCKRELL, individually and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. CITY
OF JACKSON, TENNESSEE, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01156-JDB-jay
(W.D. Tenn., July 17, 2020) is a collective action complaint
brought against Defendant for its alleged willful violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid truck
driver.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
hourly-paid city truck drivers routinely worked and performed
duties for Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week. However,
Plaintiff and those similarly situated city truck drivers were not
compensated at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of
pay by Defendants because Defendant has a common plan, policy and
practice of automatically "editing-out/deducting" a 30-minute meal
period during each work shift of their truck drivers.
City of Jackson, Tennessee is a Tennessee municipality with its
city hall located at 101 East Main Street, Jackson, Tennessee 38301
providing municipal services to its citizens. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 754-8524
Emails: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
KETORO INC: Court Grants Derrick Reaves' Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK REAVES, v. KETORO,
INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-01421-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
entered an order granting Derrick Reaves's motion to certify
class.
The Court said, "Because a class action is likely the class
members' only avenue for redress, and would be significantly more
efficient -- for both courts and litigants -- than many individual
actions, the Court finds that the superiority requirement is
satisfied. As the proposed classes meet the Rule 23(b)(3) standards
of predominance and superiority, certification is proper under Rule
23(b)(3) for monetary damages."
This action originates from a text-message marketing campaign
Defendant Ketoro, Inc. conducted in November 2018, which the
Plaintiff argues violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff contends that he was not the only customer who
received unsolicited marketing texts during this campaign. On
November 26, 2018, the Defendant informed Firepush that "we have
been getting numerous emails, saying that they are still receiving
the text messages after they replied STOP," and asked if Firepush
could "please help us out—because we do not want to spam our
customers."
Ketoro operates an online clothing store under the name "ORO Los
Angeles."[CC]
KIRKLAND LAKE: Klein Law Reminds of Aug. 28 Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. (NYSE:
KL) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.
Class Period: January 8, 2018 and November 25, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 28, 2020
Learn more about your recoverable losses in DNK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/kirkland-lake-gold-ltd-loss-submission-form?id=8031&from=5
The filed complaint alleges that Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting, especially as it relates to its projections of
risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs; (ii) as a result
of the known, but undisclosed, impending acquisition of Detour, the
Company's projections relating to its risks, reserve grade, and
all-in sustaining costs were false and misleading; (iii) the
Company's financial statements and projections were not fairly
presented in conformity with International Financial Reporting
Standards; (iv) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects and/or lacked a reasonable
basis and omitted material facts.
Shareholders have until August 28, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
For additional information about the KL lawsuit, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 616-4899
E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
LABOSMILE USA: Dr. Linda Johnston Sues Over Unsolicited Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DR. LINDA JOHNSTON FOR SAREMI AND JOHNSTON DENTISTRY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
LABOSMILE USA, LLC, d/b/a NEXT DENTAL LAB; and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06527 (C.D. Cal., July 22, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated individuals received unsolicited advertisement messages on
their telephone facsimile numbers from the Defendant without
obtaining prior express consent. The Plaintiff is not a customer of
the Defendant's services and has never provided any personal
information, including telephone facsimile number(s), to the
Defendant for any purpose whatsoever.
The Plaintiff and Class members were harmed by the Defendant's acts
including incurring certain charges due to the illegal calls and
invading their privacy.
LaboSmile USA, LLC, d/b/a Next Dental Lab, is a dental laboratory
headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida. [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
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Young Seeks Website Access for Blind Students
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LAWRENCE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05742 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
Rehabilitation Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New
York State Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated blind and visually-impaired students, alleges that the
Defendant has denied them full and equal access to its website. The
Defendant's website, https://www.liberty.edu/, lacks a variety of
features and accommodations that would enable blind students,
including the Plaintiff, to benefit from its online goods, content,
and services. The access barriers on the Defendant's website
include, but not limited to: (1) incompatibility with screen reader
assisted software; (2) lack of alternative text, an invisible code
embedded beneath a graphical image on a website, which prevents
screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the
graphics; and (3) empty links that contain no text causing the
function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user.
The Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to
its website, the Plaintiff and Class members have been and are
still being denied equal access to the Defendant's numerous
services and benefits offered to the public through the website.
Liberty University, Inc. is a higher learning institution located
at 1971 University Boulevard, Lynchburg, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
danalgottlieb@aol.com
M&M BURGERS: Ba Labor Suit Challenges Improper Wages Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
OMOU BA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
M&M BURGERS, INC., and MUKHTAR AHMAD, individually, Case No.
702946/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., July 13, 2020), challenges the
Defendants' improper compensation policies that violate the New
York State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations,
and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants never paid any uniform
maintenance pay or reimbursement for the cost of maintaining the
uniform. In addition, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
for all hours worked. The Plaintiff would regularly work through
breaks without compensation. The Plaintiff regularly worked shifts
in excess of 10 hours. On days when the Plaintiff worked in excess
of 10 hours, she was never paid an additional hour at the minimum
wage.
The Plaintiff contends that she was, throughout her entire
employment with the Defendants, a covered, non-exempt employee
within the meaning of the NYLL. As such, she was, and is, entitled
to be paid in full for all hours worked.
The Defendants own and operate fast food restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Gaylord, Esq.
BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (516) 742-4949
E-mail: mark@bglawny.com
MAR-CONE APPLIANCE: Faces Hernandez Employment Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MAR-CONE Appliance
Parts Co., et al. The case is captioned as Roberto Hernandez, On
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act v. MAR-CONE Appliance
Parts Co., and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
34-2020-00281810-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., July 15,
2020).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the employment-related laws.
Mar-Cone operates as an appliance retailer. The Company provides
appliance parts, cooling and heating equipment, washing machines,
dryers, ranges, dishwashers, air conditioners, property maintenance
supplies, water filters, tools and other home essentials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203
Glendale, CA 91203-4007
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com
MARSHALL HOTELS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under NYLL, Link Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR LINK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MARSHALL HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.; MARSHALL PAYROLL
SERVICES, LLC; and OASIS OUTSOURCING CONTRACT II, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00805-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., July 14, 2020), challenges the
Defendants' longstanding policies and practices of failing to
provide proper wage statements, to properly compensate all
non-exempt service workers for all hours worked, and to pay minimum
wages, in violation of the New York Labor Law and the New York
Minimum Wage Act.
The Defendants operate a chain of hotels, restaurants, and resorts
throughout the United States and New York.
The Plaintiff was employed as a waitress and bartender by the
Defendants at the DoubleTree in Binghamton, New York, from June
2017 to August 2017.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nestico, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone: (510) 740-2946
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
David C. Leimbach, Esq.
Kristabel Sandoval, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
William M. Hogg, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 338-2560
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: whogg@schneiderwallace.com
MEDXCOM LLC: Kawa Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
-------------------------------------------------
Kawa Orthodontics LLP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDXCOM LLC and Giffen Solutions, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-80985 (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2020), seeks
actual monetary loss or the sum of five hundred dollars for each
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, treble damages,
pre-judgment interest, costs and such further relief.
Kawa operates an orthodontics practice in Florida. Kawa claims that
its office fax machine received an unsolicited faxed advertisement
from MEDXCOM about its HIPAA-Compliant Automated Answering Service.
Kawa did not give prior express invitation or permission to receive
such faxes. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Fax: (847) 368-1501
Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
MEGA DEVELOPMENT: Holden Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
TREVOR HOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MEGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION D/B/A EYEBROW STUDIO, Case
No. CACE-20-011853 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., July 23, 2020),
alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in
part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant offers consumers beauty-related services and
products. The Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing
directed towards prospective customers with no regard for
consumers' privacy rights, according to the complaint.
The Plaintiff brings this action for statutory damages and other
legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendant in transmitting advertising and telemarketing text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone and the cellular
telephones of numerous other similarly situated persons using an
automatic telephone dialing system and without anyone's prior
express written consent, in violation of the TCPA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954 400.4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISE BAND LAW, P.A.
51 5 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954 533.4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
- and -
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJB LAW
131200 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 496-4469
E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
MONSANTO CO: Randall Sues Over Sale of Glyphosate-Based Herbicide
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICKY RANDALL, an Individual, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and
DOES 1-50 Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01418-W-KSC (S.D. Cal., July
23, 2020) is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a
direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup,
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective,
dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and
sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to
the dangers associated with its use.
According to the complaint, glyphosate is a "non-selective"
herbicide, meaning it kills indiscriminately based only on whether
a given organism produces a specific enzyme, 5-enolpyruvylshikimic
acid-3-phosphate synthase, known as EPSP synthase.
Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and
the surfactant POEA. As a direct and proximate result of being
exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff developed non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Monsanto Company is a St. Louis, Missouri-based multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and is the world's leading
producer of glyphosate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John H. Gomez, Esq.
Jessica T. Sizemore, Esq.
GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 237-3490
Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
E-mail: john@gomeztrialattorneys.com
jessica@gomeztrialattorneys.com
MORGAN STANLEY: Tillman Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Tillman, Amresh Jaiejee, Vivian Yates, Richard Gamen, and
Cheryl Gamen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-05914 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal
identifiable information, including names, Social Security numbers,
passport numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses,
account numbers, dates of birth, income, asset value and holding
information.
The Plaintiffs also allege the Defendant failed to provide timely,
accurate, and adequate notice to them and similarly situated Morgan
Stanley current and former customers that their PII had been lost
and precisely what types of information was unencrypted and in the
possession of unknown third parties. This case does not involve a
breach of a computer system by a third party, but rather an
unauthorized disclosure of the PII of the Plaintiffs and the class
by the Defendant to unknown third parties.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' PII, the Defendant assumed legal
and equitable duties to those individuals, according to the
complaint. The missing equipment and servers contain everything
unauthorized third-parties need to illegally use Morgan Stanley's
current and former customers' PII to steal their identities and to
make fraudulent purchases, among other things. Not only can
unauthorized third-parties access the Defendant's customers' PII,
the PII can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and then
offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII to criminals. The
Plaintiffs and Morgan Stanley's current and former customers face a
lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the
loss of customers' Social Security number.
According to the complaint, the PII was compromised due to Morgan
Stanley's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the
failure to protect customers' data. In addition to Morgan Stanley's
failure to prevent the Data Breach, the Defendant failed to detect
the Data Breach for years, and when they did discover the Data
Breach, it took them over a year, possibly longer, to report it to
the affected individuals and the states' Attorneys General. As a
result of this delayed response, the Plaintiffs and Class Members
had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and
continue to be, at significant risk to identity theft and various
other forms of personal, social, and financial harm; and the risk
will remain for their respective lifetimes.
The Plaintiffs are citizens of California, Florida, New York, and
Illinois and, therefore, diverse from the Defendant, which is
headquartered in New York.
Morgan Stanley sells securities and other financial products with
offices nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda Peterson, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
90 Broad Street, Suite 1011
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 564-4568
Email: apeterson@ForThePeople.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
rmcgee@ForThePeople.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Leslie Guillon, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 777-7777
Fax: (916) 924-1829
Email: aberry@justice4you.com
- and -
William 'Billy' Peerce Howard, Esq.
Heather H. Jones, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
4030 Henderson Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33629
Phone: (813) 500-1500
Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
MR. T'S INC: Fails to Pay Dancers' Minimum & OT Wages, Rice Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shakeena Rice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MR. T'S, INC., formerly dba LOOKERS LOUNGE, aka
CHEETAH, a Florida Corporation; TERRY L. THOMAS, an individual;
CLIFFORD G. MCGEHEE, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT (N.D. Fla., July 29,
2020), alleges that the Defendants evaded the mandatory minimum
wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
illegally absconded with the Plaintiff's tips and demanded illegal
kickbacks, including in the form of "House Fees."
The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants five
years ago until 2018.
The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located in Pensacola, Florida.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied minimum wage
payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to
classify her and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors." The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum
wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the
FLSA.
The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime work at a
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, says the
complaint. Furthermore, the Defendants' practice of failing to pay
tipped employees pursuant to violates the FLSA's minimum wage
provision.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
14 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1001
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 722-6977
Fax: (786) 870-4030
Email: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law
- and –
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
KRISTENSEN, LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: 310-507-7906
Email: jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
- and –
W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Phone: (713) 554-2377
Fax: (888) 995-3335
Email: craft@hughesellzey.com
OREGON: Umatilla County Agrees to Pay For Joint Legal Defense
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Regionian reports that Umatilla County agreed to join the
other 35 Oregon counties in legal defense against a potential
class-action civil rights lawsuit that claims the state's current
method for the sale of foreclosed properties is unconstitutional.
According to the lawsuit filed in Deschutes County Circuit Court on
June 25, Oregon counties are currently able to make a profit off of
selling foreclosed properties that exceed the amount of delinquent
property taxes owned in the first place.
"The plan of the county is to jointly respond to the lawsuit and
hire one counsel to represent all the counties," Umatilla County
Counsel Doug Olsen said at a July 15 board of commissioners
meeting.
The Umatilla County Commissioners unanimously approved joining in
the legal defense, which could cost up to $10,000 if not more.
"The plan for the payment of the expenses is to have an equal
amount up to $10,000 per county, and then if it's more than that
for the county it would be based on population," Olsen said.
If the legal defense costs exceed that $10,000, Umatilla County
will be responsible for approximately 2% of any additional costs
under this agreement.
Tarressa Hutchinson, 19, of Mesa, Arizona, and Timothy Waterman,
who owned land in Lane County, are the two plaintiffs currently
named in the lawsuit, though the filing intends to have them
recognized as a "class" of people.
"It could turn out to be a modest class. It could be quite a large
class," Matthew Hurst, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the
Bend Bulletin in June. "It's difficult to say what's been going on
and what they've done. We don't know."
The lawsuit alleges that Deschutes County profited more than
$65,000 after the sale of a housing unit in May 2019 owned in Bend
by Hutchinson's late mother, who died in 2007 and passed on her
entire estate to Hutchinson, who was a minor at the time. The
delinquent taxes and fees owed on the property at the time amounted
to $4,172.
It also alleges that Lane County profited more than $55,000 from
the sale of Waterman's property in 2017, despite him owing just
$2,033 in taxes and fees at the time.
"We think that this is an issue of fundamental fairness as well as
constitutional law," Hurst told the Bend Bulletin. "There's a point
where you cross the line between getting back what you're owed and
taking something that's not yours." [GN]
PEARSON EDUCATION: Pelletier et al. Allege Price-Fixing of eBooks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case ALEXANDRA PELLETIER, JOAN PADDEN, and M. SAMANTHA PAK, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; MCGRAW-HILL
GLOBAL EDUCATION HOLDINGS, LLC; EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHERS ENFORCEMENT
GROUP; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE
BOOKSELLERS, LLC; and FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-09315-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., July 23, 2020) alleges that
Plaintiffs paid supra-competitive prices for Course Materials as a
result of Defendants' "Inclusive Access" scheme in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to, and did in
fact, restrain trade in the market for Course Materials by
developing a program called "Inclusive Access" which they
implemented through agreements among themselves and by creating and
implementing a variety of "Inclusive Access" agreements with
numerous Colleges to combat tremendous competitive pressure on the
publishing industry.
The Inclusive Access is a method of providing Course Materials to
students where students, like Plaintiffs and Class Members, pay for
a code that gives them electronic access to the Publisher
Defendants' digital Course Materials which typically include
textbooks, workbooks, homework, quizzes, tests, etc. The students'
ability to access the Inclusive Access Materials expires at the end
of the semester or a defined period of time.
For classes where "Inclusive Access" applies, Plaintiffs and Class
Members are required to purchase, each semester or other time
limited period, new, digital copies of the assigned Course
Materials from the Publisher Defendants or the Defendant Retailers
(or both). Students cannot obtain the mandated Course Materials
from alternative sources, nor can they purchase used versions of
the Course Materials or borrow them from a friend. Instead, the
students are forced to purchase the Inclusive Access Materials from
the Defendants. The Retailer Defendants actively participated in
the conspiracy and shared the Publisher Defendants' conspiratorial
motive to boost their profits by eliminating competition and
maintaining and raising prices for Inclusive Access Materials.
Defendants' conspiracy has suppressed competition, reduced
student-consumer choice, and raised prices for course materials,
resulting in antitrust injury to Plaintiffs and the proposed Class
in the form of overcharge damages.
Pearson Education, Inc., Cengage Learning, Inc., and McGraw-Hill
Global Education Holdings are U.S.-based college textbooks and
Course Materials publishers.
Educational Publishers Enforcement Group is an entity created,
financed and operated by the Publisher Defendants throughout the
entire Class Period.
Barnes & Noble Education, Inc., Barnes & Noble College Booksellers,
LLC, and Follett Higher Education Group are companies in the U.S.
that provide academic and college products and services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3997
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: kverrier@lfsblaw.com
acohen@lfsblaw.com
PERSONAL WEALTH: Faces Green Suit Over Unsolicited Calls & Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Maria Green, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PERSONAL WEALTH KNOWLEDGE SOLUTIONS, LLC
d/b/a SIGNATURE PREFERRED, a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
9:20-cv-81222-AHS (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2020), arises 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 her privacy.
The Defendant utilizes prerecorded telemarketing calls and bulk
SPAM text messages to market and advertise its business, including
numerous pre-recorded calls and unsolicited text messages to the
Plaintiff, according to the complaint. 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 an
unsolicited call and text message. The Defendant is and was aware
that it is placing unsolicited robocalls and transmitting
unsolicited telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff and other
consumers without their prior express consent. The Plaintiff
asserts she was damaged by the Defendant's calls, voicemails and
text messages.
The Plaintiff's domicile is in Hillsborough County, Florida.
The Defendant is in the business of selling credit counseling
services to consumers, including debt consolidation plans.[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
PITTSBURGH LOGISTICS: Alesius Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN ALESIUS, BRENDAN BEAULIEU, BRIAN STENSTROM, ROBERT
WATERHOUSE, And NICK CUSOLITO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Employees v. PITTSBURGH LOGISTICS SYSTEMS, INC.
d/b/a PLS LOGISTICS SERVICES, Case No. 2:20-cv-01067-DSC (W.D. Pa.,
July 16, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
The Plaintiffs contend that the requirements of their workload
resulted in overtime being a regular part of their and other
Account Executive Trainees (AETs') employment. They consistently
worked as many as 60 to 70 hours each week and sometimes more.
They insist that the Defendant was aware that they worked overtime,
for which they were not compensated. They add that the Defendant
suffered, permitted and in fact required them and other AETs to
work these overtime hours.
The Defendant provides freight brokerage and third-party logistics
services to clients across the country. The Defendant's business
centers on assisting its clients with delivering their products
through purchasing third-party freight transportation services on
their behalf.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth J. Hardin, II, Esq.
Kayla H. Drum, , Esq.
HARDIN THOMPSON P.C.
The Frick Building
437 Grant Street, Suite 620
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 315-7195
Facsimile: (412) 315-7386
E-mail: kenhardin@hardinlawpc.net
kdrum@hardinglawpc.net
- and -
Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
George E. Swegman, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 244-7005
Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
gswegman@nicholllaw.com
PLAYAGS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of PlayAGS, Inc. between August 2,
2018 and August 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the
important August 24, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PlayAGS investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the PlayAGS class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1885.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] or
[email protected] 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) PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its business in
Oklahoma; (2) as a result, the Company's recurring revenue would be
negatively impacted; (3) PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its
Interactive business segment, including delays in securing
regulatory approvals and relevant licenses; (4) as a result of the
foregoing, PlayAGS was reasonably likely to record a goodwill
impairment; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. 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 24,
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-1885.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 [email protected] or [email
protected].
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces Gibson FDCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is captioned as CRAIG GIBSON, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01102-JFC (W.D. Pa., July 13,
2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joy Flowers Conti.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act regarding consumer credit.
Portfolio Recovery is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Ward, Esq.
THE LAW FIRM OF FENTERS
201 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
Telephone: (412) 545-3015
Facsimile: (412) 540-3399
E-mail: jward@fentersward.com
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss AMCA Data Security Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020 for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020 that the company's motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action suit related to the
2018-2019 AMCA Data Security Incident is pending.
On June 3, 2019, the Company reported that Retrieval-Masters
Creditors Bureau, Inc./American Medical Collection Agency ("AMCA")
had informed the Company and Optum360 LLC that an unauthorized user
had access to AMCA's system between August 1, 2018 and March 30,
2019 (the "AMCA Data Security Incident").
Optum360 provides revenue management services to the Company, and
AMCA provided debt collection services to Optum360.
AMCA first informed the Company of the AMCA Data Security Incident
on May 14, 2019. AMCA's affected system included financial
information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank account
information), medical information and other personal information
(e.g., social security numbers). Test results were not included.
Neither Optum360's nor the Company's systems or databases were
involved in the incident.
AMCA also informed the Company that information pertaining to other
laboratories' customers was also affected.
Following announcement of the AMCA Data Security Incident, AMCA
sought protection under the U.S. bankruptcy laws.
Following the AMCA Data Security Incident, numerous putative class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company related to the
incident. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases still pending to, and consolidated them for
pre-trial proceedings in, the U.S. District Court for New Jersey.
In November 2019, the plaintiffs in the multidistrict proceeding
filed a consolidated putative class action complaint against the
Company and Optum360 that named additional individuals as
plaintiffs and that asserted a variety of common law and statutory
claims in connection with the AMCA Data Security Incident.
In January 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, incorporated on September 20, 1996,
is a provider of diagnostic information services. The Company
operates through two businesses: Diagnostic Information Services
and Diagnostic Solutions. The company is based in Secaucus, New
Jersey.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Continues to Defend House Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020 for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020 that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, House Johnson v.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et. al, in the U.S. District Court
for New Jersey.
In June 2020, a putative class action lawsuit, House Johnson v.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et. al, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for New Jersey against the Company and other
defendants with respect to the Company's 401(k) plan.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the fiduciaries of
the 401(k) plan breached their duties by failing to disclose the
expenses and risks of plan investment options, allowing
unreasonable administration expenses to be charged to plan
participants, and selecting and retaining high cost and poor
performing investments.
The Company plans to vigorously defend this matter.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, incorporated on September 20, 1996,
is a provider of diagnostic information services. The Company
operates through two businesses: Diagnostic Information Services
and Diagnostic Solutions. The company is based in Secaucus, New
Jersey.
QV MANAGEMENT: Faces Puya Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
YONNY MACIAS PUYA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- QV MANAGEMENT CORP., and
KEYOUMARS KEYPOUR, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03309 (E.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020) is an action brought by the
Plaintiff to recover damages for egregious violations of state and
federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment at
QV Management in New York.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from in or around July 2012
until in or around February 2020 as a superintendent and handyman.
According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the
legally prescribed minimum wage and overtime for his hours worked
from in or around July 2014 until in or around February 2020, in
violation of the minimum wage and overtime provisions contained in
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Defendants wilfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and
overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location
of their employment while also failing to keep payroll records, as
required by both the NYLL and the FLSA.
QV Management Corp. is a New York-based real estate company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
RESTAURANTS OPERATORS: Santana Suit Removed to D. Puerto Rico
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERTO SANTANA SANCHEZ, on
behalf of the minor Gabriel Santana Concepcion ("G.S.C") and in
representation and for the benefit of one or more similarly
situated employees v. RESTAURANTS OPERATORS, INC., et al., Case No.
SJ2020CV03345 (Filed July 23, 2020), was removed from the Court of
First Instance of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Superior Court
of San Juan, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico.
The District of Puerto Rico Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01359 to the proceeding.
The complaint is a minimum wage, unpaid wages, tip credit and tip
pooling violations claim pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Furthermore, the Plaintiffs allege that ROI allegedly required
medical examinations in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ROI was founded in 1997. The Company's line of business includes
the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise
consumption.[BN]
Defendant Restaurants Operators is represented by:
Alberto J. Bayouth-Montes, Esq.
Natalia Marin-Catala, Esq.
O'NEILL & BORGES LLC
250 Munoz Rivera Ave., Suite 800
San Juan, PR 00918-1813
Telephone: (787) 764-8181
Facsimile: (787) 753-8944
E-mail: alberto.bayouth@oneillborges.com
natalia.marin@oneillborges.com
RETAIL RECOVERY: Twyman et al. Seek to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as FAITH TWYMAN and JORGE
GALLINAT, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
RETAIL RECOVERY SERVICE OF NJ, INC.; DAVID KAPLAN; RAYMOND F.
MEISENBACHER, JR.; THOMAS M. MEISENBACHER; RAYMOND MEISENBACHER &
SONS, ESQS., P.C., Case No. 2:16-cv-02910-SCM (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying this case to proceed as a class action;
2. granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
pursuant to the Parties' Class Settlement Agreement;
3. granting approval of the payment of the incentive awards;
and
4. granting further relief to the Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives, and for award of attorney's fees and
costs.
Retail Recovery is an New Jersey collection agency. Raymond
Meisenbacher And Sons is a law firm in Bridgewater, New
Jersey.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: 201-273-7117
E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
Attorneys for the Defendant Retail Recovery Service of NJ, Inc.,
are:
Barry I. Siegel, Esq.
333 Littleton Road, Suite 301
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Attorneys for the Defendants Raymond F. Meisenbacher, Jr., Thomas
M. Meisenbacher and Raymond Meisenbacher & Sons, Esqs., P.C., are:
Aleksander Powietrzynski, Esq.
WINSTON & WINSTON, P.C.
750 Third Avenue, Suite 978
New York, NY 10017
RIO VISTA: Baker Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RIO VISTA FARMS, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01438-TLN-KJN (E.D.
Cal., July 17, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received telemarketing text
messages to his cellular telephone number ending in 2723 from
Defendant beginning on or about June 2020. Allegedly, Defendant
engages in aggressive unsolicited marketing using automatic
telephone dialing system to promote its services harming thousands
of consumers in the process, including Plaintiff.
Plaintiff asserts that he did not provide Defendant with his
express written consent to receive such telemarketing text
messages. Moreover, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number was
registered with the National-Do-Not-Call Registry since 2004.
Rio Vista Farms, LLC is a cannabis dispensary. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: 305-975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
RIVER OAKS: Summers Suit Removed From Cir. Court to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SHERECE SUMMERS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RIVER OAKS
HEALTHCARE & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, Case No. 2020CH03359
(Filed March 19, 2020), was removed from the Illinois Circuit
Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on July 13, 2020.
The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04110 to the proceeding.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by using a timekeeping system
that allegedly collected, stored and used the biometric identifiers
and biometric information of individuals the Defendant employed
while failing to provide a publicly available retention schedule or
guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and
biometric information.
River Oaks operates a nursing home facility.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Avenue, Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
plesko@pwcklegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jody Kahn Mason, Esq.
Jason A. Selvey, Esq.
Katherine H. Oblak, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: 312 787 4949
Facsimile: 312 787 4995
E-mail: Jody.Mason@jacksonlewis.com
Jason.Selvey@jacksonlewis.com
Katherine.Oblak@jacksonlewis.com
RIVERSIDE MEDICAL: Faces Salerno Suit Over Removal From MA Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
SALERNO MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, LLP, SENIOR HEALTHCARE OUTREACH
PROGRAM, INC., and SM MEDICAL LLC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RIVERSIDE MEDICAL GROUP, LLC,
UNITED HEALTHCARE COMMUNITY PLAN, INC., OPTUM, INC., OPTUM CARE,
INC., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY,
and JOHNS DOE 1-20, Case No. ESX-L-004846-20 (New Jersey Cty.,
Essex Cty., July 17, 2020), arises from the removal without cause
by Defendant United of medical groups from the New Jersey Medicare
Advantage Plan.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated New Jersey Medical Groups, who are not parties
to any agreements with United concerning the New Jersey Medicare
Advantage (MA) Plan, which contains an arbitration clause, and who
learned from United beginning in or about mid 2019 that one or more
of their healthcare providers (Providers) who generate revenues
from United for their Medical Groups were going to be deselected
(removed) by United from the Plan without cause based upon its
alleged "assessment" of the Plan's network.
SMA and SMM are New Jersey based medical groups practicing in the
State.
Specifically excluded from the class is Defendant RMG, as well as
any other medical group owned, in whole or in part, by United. In
violation of the MA regulations, the Providers' due process rights
and their right to fair hearings, these Medical Groups and their
Providers were not given any reason why the Providers were not
being renewed other than that they were deselected by United after
it "assessed our networks to help ensure they meet the needs of our
members," and were not given the information required by the
Regulations such that the Providers could take meaningful appeals,
says the complaint.
RMG, an Optum company owned by United, is a large, multi-discipline
medical practice (including adult medicine, allergy and immunology,
mental health, chiropractic, cardiology, ear, nose and throat, foot
& ankle, gastroenterology, pain management, pediatric, physical
therapy, optometry, pulmonology, rheumatology and sleep medicine),
with 250 board-certified healthcare providers, over 250,000
patients and some 85 offices located throughout New Jersey.
United, the largest healthcare company in the world, with 2019
revenues of over $198 billion and earnings of nearly $14 billion,
is a Minnesota holding company that owns UHC and UHCCP.
UHG and/or UHC are Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations (MAOs)
which means they are approved by the Government to offer MA Plans.
To cover Medicare benefits, Medicare pays MAOs, such as United, a
fixed monthly dollar amount based on the number of "lives governed"
(the number of its insureds in an MA Plan) and the complexity of
the cases, unlike traditional Medicare where the Government
directly pays Providers different amounts based upon the types of
medical services rendered.
Medicare has Part A that covers hospitalization, Part B that covers
outpatient treatment, while MA Plans are known as Part C plans.
The Plan, a subsidiary of UHC, is a dual complete medical plan that
offers health insurance coverage for people in New Jersey entitled
to Medicare and Medicaid. It also includes prescription drugs
pursuant to Medicare Part D. Customers entitled to Medicare and
Medicaid, who have limited income and resources, may also be
eligible to have their health plan premiums paid.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven I. Adler, Esq.
Mohamed Nabulsi, Esq.
MANDELBAUM SALSBURG, P.C.
3 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: 973 736-4600
Facsimile: 973 736-4670
ROOSEN VARCHETTI OLIVER: Eickenroth Hits Summons Amidst Quarantine
------------------------------------------------------------------
Candy Eickenroth and Damian Eickenroth, individually, and
representative capacity on behalf of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. Roosen, Varchetti & Oliver, PLLC, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-11647, (E.D. Mich., June 23, 2020), seeks statutory
damages along with reasonable attorney's fees and costs permissible
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Roosen, Varchetti & Oliver, PLLC is a law firm operating as a
collection agency. It served a complaint on behalf of its creditor
client, a summons demanding payment for installment for
Eickenroth's vehicle. Eickenroth claims that the act of serving
them the summons is in violation of "Stay Home, Stay Safe"
Executive Order of the Michigan Governor. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
5 E. Market St., Suite 250
Corning, NY 14830
Tel: (888) 551-8685
Email: cwarner@warner.legal
- and -
B. Thomas Golden, Esq.
GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
318 E. Main St., Ste, L, P.O. Box 9
Lowell, MI 49331
Tel: (616) 897-2900
Email: btg@bthomasgolden.com
SANTA BARBARA, CA: Reaches Deal in Class Suit Over Jail Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------
After years of negotiations, Plaintiffs' Counsel, the Santa Barbara
County Sheriff's Office and the County of Santa Barbara have
reached a settlement in Clay Murray et al v. County of Santa
Barbara et al, a class-action lawsuit regarding conditions of
confinement at the County Jail.
Subject to court approval, the settlement binds the County and the
Sheriff's Office to changes already implemented and future
significant commitments to improve living conditions for people
confined in the jail. The County and the Sheriff's Office have been
implementing process improvements and advancements over the last
several years consistent with the settlement plan. The settlement
plan will result in more out of cell time for inmates, specialized
mental health units and timelines to address different acuity
levels of medical and mental health conditions, increased
observation of actively suicidal inmates and decreased use of
safety cells. Improvements to the physical plant of the Main Jail
will provide ADA-related modifications and adequate space for
programming for vulnerable populations, and will allow their
increased participation in therapeutic recreational activities.
Both the Sheriff and the County have agreed to continue to address
the Jail's asserted deficiencies until durable solutions are
implemented. Many of the plan requirements have been partially or
completely implemented already.
Sheriff Brown made the following statement about the settlement:
"This negotiated settlement represents a milestone in our agency's
delivery of correctional services to those in our Custody. It sets
the path toward much needed improvements in the processes,
programs, and overall environment of the entire Main Jail campus.
As these measures are implemented, we will be able to provide
better correctional services to our incarcerated community
members.
Although our Custody professionals have performed admirably for
years, they have been hampered in their efforts by limited
resources and an obsolete and inefficient jail facility that is
more than 50 years old. The much-welcomed subject matter expert
evaluations and remedial plans that are a part of this agreement
will pave the way toward a comprehensive community of care for the
entire inmate population.
I appreciate the support and commitment from the Board of
Supervisors to make this agreement a reality, and am grateful for
the hard and skillful work of Custody staff and members of the
County Counsel's Office in helping bring us all together with a
roadmap for future progress. As we enter into this agreement we
know there will be many difficulties in meeting the myriad of
requirements it contains, but I have confidence that the dedicated
men and women in our Custody Operations Branch will rise up and see
to it that we meet those challenges."
A copy of the settlement agreement is available at:
https://www.sbsheriff.org/class-action-stipulated-judgement-and-notice-of-settlement/
[GN]
SC JOHNSON: Falsely Markets Windex Non-Toxic Products, Clark Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD CLARK, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC., a
Wisconsin corporation; and DOES 1-1000, inclusive, Case No.
RG20067897 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., July 15, 2020), is arises
out of the Defendants' sale and marketing of a variety of
purportedly "non-toxic" cleaning products under the Windex label.
The cleaning products include Windex Original Non-Toxic Formula,
Windex Vinegar Non-Toxic Formula ("Windex Vinegar"), Windex
Ammonia-Free Non-Toxic Formula ("Windex Ammonia-Free"), and Windex
Multi-Surface Non-Toxic Formula ("Windex Multi-Surface").
To capitalize on consumer demand for "eco-friendly" and
"toxin-free" home cleaning products, the Defendant's marketing and
promotion of the Windex Products rely on false and misleading
claims about the "non-toxic" nature of the Products, says the
complaint. These claims are made without qualification or
disclaimer.
The Plaintiff purchased Windex Products, including the "non-toxic"
Ammonia-Free variety from a Safeway store located in San Francisco
in the spring of 2020 for personal consumption in California.
S.C. Johnson is an American multinational privately held
manufacturer of household cleaning supplies and other consumer
chemicals based in Racine, Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Lilach Halperin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
mike@consumersadvocates.com
lilach@consumersadvocates.com
SCIPLAY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Retirement Sys. and Li Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company is awaiting
the court's decision on its motion to dismiss the class action
suits initiated by the Police Retirement System of St. Louis and
Hongwei Li.
On or about October 14, 2019, the Police Retirement System of St.
Louis filed a putative class action complaint in New York state
court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, and
SciPlay's underwriters with respect to its initial public offering
(the "PRS Action"). The complaint was amended on November 18, 2019.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons or entities
who acquired Class A common stock of SciPlay pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement filed and issued in
connection with SciPlay's initial public offering, which commenced
on or about May 3, 2019. The complaint asserts claims for alleged
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 77, and seeks certification of the putative class;
compensatory damages of at least $146.0 million, and the award of
the plaintiff's and the class's reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action.
On or about December 9, 2019, Hongwei Li filed a putative class
action complaint in New York state court asserting substantively
similar causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and
substantially similar factual allegations as those alleged in the
PRS Action (the "Li Action").
On December 18, 2019, the New York state court entered a stipulated
order consolidating the PRS Action and the Li Action into a single
lawsuit. On December 23, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated action.
SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood
of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, if
any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit,
and intend to vigorously defend against them."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.
SCIPLAY CORP: Nevada Court Stays Good's IPO Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a Nevada trial court has
entered a stipulated order that, among other things, stayed John
Good's lawsuit related to the company's initial public offering
pending entry of an order resolving the motion to dismiss in a
similar case before a New York state court.
On or about November 4, 2019, plaintiff John Good filed a putative
class action complaint in Nevada state court against SciPlay,
certain of its executives and directors, Scientific Games
Corporation (SGC), and SciPlay's underwriters with respect to
SciPlay's initial public offering.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who
purchased Class A common stock of SciPlay in or traceable to
SciPlay's initial public offering that it completed on or about May
7, 2019.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages, and the
award of the plaintiff's and the class's reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in the action.
On February 27, 2020, the trial court entered a stipulated order
that, among other things, stayed the lawsuit pending entry of an
order resolving the motion to dismiss that is pending in the
SciPlay IPO matter in New York state court.
SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood
of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if
any. We believe that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit,
and intend to vigorously defend against them."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.
SCWORX CORP: Leonard Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathon Charles Leonard, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SCWORX Corp. and Marc S.
Schessel, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04777 (S.D. N.Y., June 22,
2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
SCWorx is a provider of data content and services related to the
repair, normalization, and interoperability of information for
healthcare providers, as well as big data analytics for the
healthcare industry.
On April 13, 2020, SCWorx issued a press release that it issued a
purchase order for 48 Million COVID-19 Rapid Testing Units. Under
said order, SCWorx will supply Rethink My Healthcare with IgM/IgG
Rapid Detection Kits. On this news, SCWorx share price skyrocketed
from a previous close of $2.25 per share to $14.88 per share before
later closing that day at $12.02 per share. However, several
reports emerged disputing the validity of the purchase agreement.
On April 22, 2020, the SEC ordered that trading in SCWorx
securities be suspended due to the likelihood that SCWorx will not
be able to commit to the purchase given the capacity of its
suppliers. On this news, SCWorx share price closed at $5.76 per
share on April 21, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (212) 292-5690
Fax: (212) 292-5680
Email: RalphS@johnsonfistel.com
- and -
Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Tel: (470) 632-6000
Fax: (770) 200-3101
Email: MichaelF@johnsonfistel.com
SEAWORLD PARKS: Gurwell Sues Over Cancelled Passes, Seeks Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Gurwell and Brad Sylvia, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Seaworld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00312, (E.D. Va.,
June 22, 2020), seeks restitutionary damages, a full cash refund,
an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such other and
further relief resulting from breach of contract/warranty and for
violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
Seaworld Parks & Entertainment owns theme park destinations in
North America where Gurwell and Sylvia purchased annual memberships
for the parks. However, the Parks have been shut down as a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic and all passes were canceled. Seaworld has
yet to provide a discount or refund for its customers. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jodie E. Buchman, Esq.
Pierce C. Murphy, Esq.
SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN WHITE
201 N. Charles St., 26th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Tel: (410) 385-2225
Fax: (410) 547-2432
Email: jbuchman@silvermanthompson.com
pmurphy@silvermanthompson.com
- and -
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
Bahar Sodaify (SBN 289730)
Zach Chrzan (SBN 329159)
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
Los Angeles, CA 90069
Tel: (213) 788-4050
Fax: (213) 788-4070
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com
bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com
SHUTTERFLY INC: Faces LP Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
L.P., a minor, E.P., a minor, S.P., a minor, D.P., a minor, F.P., a
minor, R.P., a minor, and A.P., a minor, by and through their legal
guardian Esther Yona Posner; N.T., a minor, by and through her
legal guardian Ilya Tsorin; and C.D., a minor, by and through her
legal guardian Katherine Delgado, V.M., a minor, by and through her
legal guardian Eunice Morris; A.S., a minor, Y.S., a minor, S.S., a
minor, D.S., a minor, and M.S., a minor by and through their legal
guardian Dina Shallman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SHUTTERFLY, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-04960-KAW
(N.D. Cal., July 23, 2020), seeks to put a stop to the Defendant's
surreptitious collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the
Plaintiffs' and the proposed classes' sensitive biometric data, in
violation of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, California's Online
Privacy Protection Act, and California's Consumer Privacy Act.
The lawsuit alleges that Shutterfly conceals the fact that it
utilizes proprietary facial recognition software to extract from
user-uploaded photographs the unique biometric identifiers (i.e.,
graphical representations of facial features, also known as facial
geometry) associated with people's faces in order to identify them.
Shutterfly then stores the biometric information of users and
non-users in its database. Shutterfly does not disclose its
biometric data collection to its users, nor does it ask users or
non-users in the photographs to acknowledge, let alone consent to,
these practices, the Plaintiffs assert.
Shutterfly users can use its platform to upload, organize, and
maintain photographs, as well as share photographs with friends and
relatives. Once a user uploads a photograph on Shutterfly, the user
can "tag" (i.e., identify by name) all of the faces that appear in
the photograph. Shutterfly users can then use this feature to
gather, organize, share, and transform the photos into personalized
items. If the user does not "tag" the faces in the photos,
Shutterfly will still apply its technology to the photos and
organize photos by face, showing a person's face and how many
photos have been uploaded of them underneath their face.
"Biometrics" refers to technologies used to identify an individual
based on unique 16 physical characteristics. Common biometric
identifiers include retina or iris scans, fingerprints,
voiceprints, or hand or face geometry scans.
The Plaintiffs are natural persons whose pictures were uploaded to
Shutterfly.
Shutterfly is a leading retailer and manufacturing platform for
personalized photos and services. Shutterfly can be accessed online
and through its "app" that can be downloaded by users to devices
such as a smartphone or tablet.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
Frank Busch, Esq.
WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT, BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 725
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 357-8900
Facsimile: (415) 357-8910
E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
busch@wvbrlaw.com
- and -
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
Melissa H. Nafash, Esq.
Jonathan D. Waisnor, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com
mnafash@labaton.com
jwaisnor@labaton.com
SLEEP NUMBER: Settlement Reached in San Diego Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020 for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2020 that the parties in the class
action suit pending before the San Diego County Superior Court,
California, have executed a settlement agreement pending Court
approval.
On September 18, 2018, two former Home Delivery team members filed
suit, now venued in San Diego County Superior Court, California,
alleging representative claims on a purported class action basis
under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.
While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery
workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff
class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed
or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures
relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures,
meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law.
The Complaint sought damages in the form of civil penalties and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.
The parties have executed a settlement agreement pending Court
approval, which includes the settlement and release of certain
additional related claims that are contained in a consolidated
complaint.
Sleep Number said, "We intend to continue vigorously defending this
matter in the event the Court does not approve the settlement."
Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line
of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds,
bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed
skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep
Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
SNAP INC: Settlement in IPO Class Suit Wins Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Snap Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the settlement in the class action
related to the company's initial public offering (IPO) has been
granted preliminary approval.
Beginning in May 2017, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters for its initial public offering
(IPO) were named as defendants in securities class actions
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's Class
A common stock, alleging violation of securities laws that arose
following its IPO.
On January 17, 2020, the company reached a preliminary agreement to
settle the securities class actions. The preliminary settlement
agreement was signed in January 2020 and provided for a resolution
of all of the pending claims in the securities class actions for
$187.5 million.
In the fourth quarter of 2019, the company recorded legal expense,
net of amounts directly covered by insurance, of $100.0 million for
the expected settlement of the stockholder actions since we
concluded the loss was probable and estimable.
The amount was recorded in general and administrative expense in
our consolidated statements of operations.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Snap Inc. operates as a camera company in the United States and
internationally. The company offers Snapchat, a camera application
that helps people to communicate through short videos and images.
The company was formerly known as Snapchat, Inc. and changed its
name to Snap Inc. in September 2016. Snap Inc. was founded in 2010
and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
SRNE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sorrento-therapeutics-inc-information-request-form?prid=8120&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SRNE)
SRNE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 15, 2020 -
May 22, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sorrento-therapeutics-inc-information-request-form?prid=8120&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Sorrento
Therapeutics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
initial finding of "100% inhibition" in an in vitro virus infection
will not necessarily translate to to success or safety in vivo, or
in person; (ii) the Company's finding was not a "cure" for
COVID-19; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]
STUBHUB INC: Menzel Demands Ticket Refund Due to COVID-19 Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY SCOTT MENZEL, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. STUBHUB, INC., Case No. GC-20-584382 (Cal.
Super., San Francisco Cty., July 13, 2020), accuses the Defendant
of violating the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair
Competition Law, and False Advertising Law.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons
residing in California, who purchased from StubHub tickets to an
event that has been canceled, postponed or rescheduled, and to whom
StubHub did not offer to provide a refund equal to the value of the
ticket and all applicable fees.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding
cancellations and postponements of public gatherings, StubHub
unilaterally and without notice revoked its FanProtect Guarantee,
in contravention of California law, according to the complaint.
Unlike competitors like Ticketmaster, StubHub has shifted the
burden of this extraordinary crisis onto consumers who paid StubHub
hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars for tickets to events that
the current crisis has caused to be rescheduled, postponed
indefinitely or canceled altogether.
StubHub is an American ticket exchange and resale company. StubHub
provides services for buyers and sellers of tickets for sports,
concerts, theater and other live entertainment events.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Damel O. Herrera, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (318) 782-4485
E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
nhagman@caftertyclobes.com
bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone (610) 200-0580
E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@esstriallawyers.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1900
E-mail: tcarpenter(@carlsonlynch.com
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Appeal in Stichting Depositary Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the appeal in the class
action suit headed by Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets
Equity Pool, is still pending.
On November 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit, Retail
Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v.
Synchrony Financial, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the Company
and two of its officers.
The lawsuit asserts violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material
information concerning the Company's underwriting practices and
private-label card business, and was filed on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018.
The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses.
On February 5, 2019, the court appointed Stichting Depositary APG
Developed Markets Equity Pool as lead plaintiff for the putative
class. On April 5, 2019, an amended complaint was filed, asserting
a new claim for violations of the Securities Act in connection with
statements in the offering materials for the Company's December 1,
2017 note offering.
The Securities Act claims are filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Company bonds in or traceable to
the December 1, 2017 note offering between December 1, 2017 and
November 1, 2018. The amended complaint names as additional
defendants two additional Company officers, the Company's board of
directors, and the underwriters of the December 1, 2017 note
offering. The amended complaint is captioned Stichting Depositary
APG Developed Markets Equity Pool and Stichting Depositary APG
Fixed Income Credit Pool v. Synchrony Financial et al.
On March 26, 2020, the District Court recaptioned the case In re
Synchrony Financial Securities Litigation and on March 31, 2020,
the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice.
On April 20, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the decision
to the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Synchrony Financial, incorporated on September 12, 2003, is a
consumer financial services company. The Company provides a range
of credit products through programs it has established with a group
of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers,
buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service
providers. The Company's revenue activities are managed through
three sales platforms: Retail Card, Payment Solutions and
CareCredit. It offers its credit products through its subsidiary,
Bank (the Bank). The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut.
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Defends Cambell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend class suits alleging Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) violations.
The Bank or the Company is, or has been, defending a number of
putative class actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act as a result of phone calls made by the
Bank.
The complaints generally have alleged that the Bank or the Company
placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system
or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation, without
specifying an aggregate amount.
Campbell et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on January 25, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The
original complaint named only J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and J.C.
Penney Corporation, Inc. as the defendants but was amended on April
7, 2017 to replace those defendants with the Bank.
Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank, for which
the Bank is indemnifying Wal-Mart, was filed on January 17, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
The original complaint named only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as a
defendant but was amended on March 30, 2017 to add Synchrony Bank
as an additional defendant.
Mott et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on February 2, 2018 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Synchrony Financial, incorporated on September 12, 2003, is a
consumer financial services company. The Company provides a range
of credit products through programs it has established with a group
of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers,
buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service
providers. The Company's revenue activities are managed through
three sales platforms: Retail Card, Payment Solutions and
CareCredit. It offers its credit products through its subsidiary,
Bank (the Bank). The company is based in Stamford, Connecticut.
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Refuses to Pay Loan Agents' Fees, Ratliff Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ratliff CPA Firm, PC, a South Carolina Professional Corporation,
individually and on behalf of a class of similar situated
businesses and individuals v. Synovus Financial Corp., Synovus Bank
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 2:20-cv-02614-BHH (D.S.C., July
14, 2020), alleges that the Defendants refuses to comply with the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that requires
them to pay loan agent fees out of the compensation it received for
processing Paycheck Protection Program loans.
On March 27, 2020, the United States Congress enacted the CARES
Act. A signature piece of this landmark legislation is the SBA's
PPP which initially authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable
loans to small businesses to cover payroll and other expenses (PPP
I). After the initial funds quickly dried up, Congress added $310
billion additional dollars to the program (PPP II).
The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing
business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval.
Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a
generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the
requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee
owed to the loan applicant's agent (e.g., attorney or accountant).
The lawsuit seeks compensation from the Defendants for services the
Plaintiff and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of
recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans.
Ratliff provides corporate and individual taxation advice to its
clients and performs financial planning and consulting for both
businesses and individuals in the local community. Ratliff says it
meets the criteria to be a PPP Agent under the CARES Act.
Synovus is a financial services company and registered bank holding
company with approx. $51 billion in assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A.
1410 Laurel Street (29201)
Post Office Box 1090
Columbia, SC 29202
Telephone: (803) 252-4848
Facsimile: (803) 252-4810
E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com
- and -
Mark C. Tanenbaum, Esq.
MARK C. TANENBAUM, P.A.
1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Suite 101
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (803) 577-5100
Facsimile: 843-722-4688
E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com
- and -
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
TERRAFORM POWER: Defends Reorganization-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
TerraForm Power, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 22, 2020, that the
company is a defendant in multiple suits including a class action,
related to its agreement and plan of reorganization by among
Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P., an exempted limited partnership
formed under the laws of Bermuda ("BEP"), Brookfield Renewable
Corporation, a corporation incorporated under the laws of British
Columbia and an indirect subsidiary of BEP ("BEPC"), 2252876
Alberta ULC, an unlimited liability corporation incorporated under
the laws of Alberta and a wholly owned direct subsidiary of BEP
("Acquisition Sub"), the Company and TerraForm Power NY Holdings,
Inc., a newly formed New York corporation and a wholly owned direct
subsidiary of the Company ("Holdings").
On March 16, 2020, TerraForm Power, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("TerraForm Power," "TERP," or the "Company"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the "Reorganization
Agreement"), by and among Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P., an
exempted limited partnership formed under the laws of Bermuda
("BEP"), Brookfield Renewable Corporation, a corporation
incorporated under the laws of British Columbia and an indirect
subsidiary of BEP ("BEPC"), 2252876 Alberta ULC, an unlimited
liability corporation incorporated under the laws of Alberta and a
wholly owned direct subsidiary of BEP ("Acquisition Sub"), the
Company and TerraForm Power NY Holdings, Inc., a newly formed New
York corporation and a wholly owned direct subsidiary of the
Company ("Holdings").
Pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in
the Reorganization Agreement, the Company will merge with and into
Holdings (the "Reincorporation Merger"), with Holdings continuing
as the surviving corporation, and such Reincorporation Merger will
be immediately followed by (i) a binding share exchange that will
result in BEPC acquiring all of the outstanding and issued Holdings
Class B common stock in exchange for BEPC Class A exchangeable
subordinated voting shares (the "BEPC Exchange") and (ii) a binding
share exchange that will result in Acquisition Sub acquiring all of
the outstanding and issued Holdings Class C common stock in
exchange for non-voting limited partnership units of BEP (the "BEP
Exchange" and, together with the BEPC Exchange and the
Reincorporation Merger, the "Transactions").
On June 29, 2020, the Company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive proxy
statement/prospectus, for the solicitation of proxies in connection
with the Annual Meeting of the Company's stockholders, to be held
on July 29, 2020, for purposes of voting on, among other things,
matters necessary to complete the Transactions (the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus").
In connection with the Reorganization Agreement and the
Transactions, (i) one complaint has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York by a purported
TerraForm Power stockholder against TerraForm Power and members of
the TerraForm Power board of directors (the "TerraForm Power
Board"), (ii) one putative class action complaint has been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by a
purported TerraForm Power stockholder on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated TerraForm Power stockholders (excluding
defendants and related or affiliated persons) against TerraForm
Power, members of the TerraForm Power Board, BEP, BEPC, Acquisition
Sub and Holdings, and (iii) four complaints have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
by purported TerraForm Power stockholders against TerraForm Power
and members of the TerraForm Power Board. The six complaints
(collectively, the "Stockholder Actions") are captioned as
follows: Moriconi v. TerraForm Power, Inc., et al., Case
1:20-cv-03136 (E.D.N.Y.) (Jul. 14, 2020), Post v. TerraForm Power,
Inc. et al., Case 1:20-cv-00927 (D. Del) (Jul. 8, 2020), McCourt v.
TerraForm Power, Inc., et al., Case 1:20-cv-05326 (S.D.N.Y.) (Jul.
10, 2020), Raul v. TerraForm Power, Inc., et al., Case
1:20-cv-05393 (S.D.N.Y.) (Jul. 14, 2020), Schammel v. TerraForm
Power, Inc., et al., Case 1:20-cv-05456 (S.D.N.Y.) (Jul. 15, 2020),
and Holmes v. TerraForm Power, Inc., et al., Case 1:20-cv-05522
(S.D.N.Y.) (Jul. 17, 2020).
In general, the Stockholder Actions allege that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or aided and abetted in such
alleged violations, because the Proxy Statement/Prospectus
allegedly omits or misstates certain material information. The
Stockholder Actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the Transactions, as well as
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.
TerraForm Power, BEP, BEPC and the other named defendants believe
that no supplemental disclosures are required under applicable
laws; however, solely to avoid the risk that the Stockholder
Actions delay the Transactions and to minimize the potential
expense, burden, nuisance and uncertainty of defending the
Stockholder Actions, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, TerraForm Power, BEP and BEPC are making certain
disclosures that are intended to supplement and revise those
contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which TerraForm Power,
BEP and BEPC refer to as the "Supplemental Disclosures."
TerraForm Power, BEP, BEPC and the other named defendants have
denied, and continue to deny, that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus
is deficient in any respect or that they have committed or aided
and abetted others in committing any violations of law, and
expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they complied
with their legal obligations and are providing the Supplemental
Disclosures solely to try to eliminate the potential burden,
nuisance, uncertainty and expense of litigation, to put the claims
that were or could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any
possible delay to the closing of the Transactions that might arise
from litigation.
A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/39ptgts.
TerraForm Power, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns and
operates clean power generation assets. The company was formerly
known as SunEdison Yieldco, Inc. and changed its name to TerraForm
Power, Inc. in May 2014. TerraForm Power, Inc. was founded in 2014
and is headquartered in New York, New York.
TIDEWATER FINANCE: Caldera Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
LUCINA CALDERA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIDEWATER FINANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-06412 (C.D. Cal., July 17, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged negligent
and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant contacted Plaintiff near
daily on her cellular telephone number ending in 4659 from on or
around July 2019 in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding
debt owed by Plaintiff's husband. Allegedly, Defendant used an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice to place its daily calls to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff affirms that she did not provide prior express consent to
Defendants to receive such calls and even informed Defendant that
she did not want to be contacted by Defendant.
Tidewater Finance Company is a loan provider and debt collector.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 866-598-5042
Fax: 866-633-0228
Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
TIFFANY & COMPANY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TIFFANY AND COMPANY, a New York corporation; and DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01420-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal., July
14, 2020), seeks redress against the Defendants for their failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate their Web site to be
fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Company's denial of full and equal
access to its Web site, https://www.tiffany.com/, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered thereby and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of her
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Company's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Ms. Brooks is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments,
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people, who meet this definition, have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Tiffany & Co. is an American luxury jewelry and specialty retailer
headquartered in New York City. Tiffany sells jewelry, sterling
silver, china, crystal, stationery, fragrances, water bottles,
watches, personal accessories, and leather goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: classaction@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
TRANSITIONAL SERVICES: David Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan David, Michael Lawrence, George Akosa, and Debra Hamilton,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
TRANSITIONAL SERVICES FOR NEW YORK, INC., MELINDA PANTONE a/k/a
MELINDA PATONE, LARRY S. GRUBLER, JOANNE MAZZO, MAIRA E. POLO, and
PAMELA WALLACE, as individuals, Case No. 711603/2020 (N.Y. Sup.,
Queens Cty., July 29, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to
recover damages for egregious violations of state wage and overtime
laws arising out of the Plaintiffs' employment with the
Defendants.
According to the complaint, although the Plaintiffs worked for 40
hours per week they were paid by the Defendants only for 35 hours
per week. In fact, throughout their employed with the Defendants,
the Plaintiffs did not leave the office for a meal/break during
their night shift and/or when there were only two employees working
during a given shift. Therefore, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs wages corresponding to 5 hours per week, which were left
unpaid by the Defendants a blatant violation of the provisions
contained in the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as counselors.
TRANSITIONAL SERVICES FOR NEW YORK, INC., is a not-for-profit
corporation organized under the laws of New York with its principal
place of business located in Queens Village, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Phone: 718-263-9591
TRAVELERS COMPANIES: Denies Coverage for COVID Losses, A2Z Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE TYPEWRITORIUM COMPANY dba A2Z BUSINESS SYSTEMS, on behalf of
itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE
TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC. and TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY
OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:20-cv-04816-SK (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2020),
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other persons and
entities similarly situated, who suffered loss of business income
and incurred extra expense as a result of orders of civil
authorities restricting operation of non-essential businesses.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class members,
being contractually insured by Travelers against loss of business
income caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property at
the described insured premises, were unfairly and unjustifiably
denied coverage and compensation by Travelers in breach of its
insurance contracts with them and in violation of California and
Federal law including, the California Insurance Code, the
California Unfair Competition Law, and the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
On March 4, 2020, the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom,
proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in California as a result
of the threat of the coronavirus known as COVID-19. On March 11,
2020, the World Health Organization Director General declared the
COVID-19 outbreak to be a worldwide pandemic. On March 16, 2020,
Shelter-in-Place Orders were issued by civil authorities in San
Francisco Bay Area Counties, including San Mateo County in which
Plaintiff has its principal place of 8 business, as well San
Francisco, Alameda, Santa Clara, Marin and Contra Costa Counties,
all of which encompass governmental jurisdictions in which A2Z does
business.
The Plaintiff's business consists of retail sales and the servicing
and repair of business machines, including copiers, fax machines
and printers as well as sales of supplies for such machines.
Travelers is an American insurance company. It is the
second-largest writer of U.S. commercial property casualty
insurance, and the sixth-largest writer of U.S. personal insurance
through independent agents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
Tyson C. Redenbarger, Esq.
Noorjahan Rahman, Esq.
Julia Q. Peng, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY
San Francisco Airport Office Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
nrahman@cpmlegal.com
jpeng@cpmlegal.com
- and -
John M. Kelson, Esq.
KELSON LAW GROUP
483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 465-1326
Facsimile: (510) 465-0871
E-mail: kelsonlaw@sbcglobal.net
- and -
Jerry K. Cimmet, Esq.
4 Brittany Lane
Chico, CA 95926
Telephone: (650) 619-1301
Facsimile: (650) 456-2100
E-mail: cimlaw@me.com
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 21 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Tufin Software Technologies
Ltd. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details
about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
TUFN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tufin-software-technologies-ltd-loss-form?prid=8120&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. (NYSE:TUFN)
Affected investors purchased TUFN securities pursuant and/or
traceable to documents issued in connection with the Company's
April 2019 initial public offering and/or its December 2019
secondary public offering
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tufin-software-technologies-ltd-loss-form?prid=8120&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (i) Tufin's customer
relationships and growth metrics were overstated, particularly with
respect to North America; (ii) Tufin's business was deteriorating,
primarily in North America; (iii) as a result, Tufin's
representations regarding its sustainable financial prospects were
overly optimistic; and (iv) as a result, the documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]
U BY KOTEX: Aug. 18 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Moritz, writing for KSAT.com, reports that if you bought
any of various U By Kotex tampons between March 8, 2013, and Nov.
19, 2019, you qualify to claim part of a $7 million class-action
settlement.
You may receive up to $30, and no receipts are necessary. The
lawsuit alleged defective products. The deadline to file a claim is
Aug. 18. Visit the website www.KotexSettlement.com to submit your
claim.
The company does not admit any wrongdoing by settling these claims.
[GN]
U.S. BANK: Faces Kashani TILA Suit Over Failure to Provide Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIR SAIED KASHANI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. U.S. BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE GSR MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST 2005-AR6; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-06270-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal., July 14, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act.
The lawsuit is brought in favor of consumer borrowers in connection
with the Defendants' violation(s) of the Truth in Lending for
failure to give notice of (alleged) transfer of mortgage loans.
On July 17, 2019, the Plaintiff received a letter from Wells
Fargo's attorney claiming that in January 2019, Wells Fargo had
transferred Plaintiff Kashani's Residential Mortgage Loan to GSR
Trust. This was the first notice of any kind the Plaintiff ever
received that his Residential Mortgage Loan had been transferred.
Thus, the Plaintiff did not discover until July 17, 2019, at the
earliest, that the loan had allegedly been transferred, says the
complaint.
Under the Truth in Lending Act as amended (2009), the
transferee/assignee of a mortgage loan must notify the borrower in
writing not later than 30 days after the borrower's mortgage loan
is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned, the Plaintiff
contends.
GSR is essentially a real estate investment trust that administers
a portfolio of mortgage loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kendrick Jan, Esq.
KENDRICK JAN, APC
402 West Broadway, Suite 1520
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-7702
E-mail: kj@jan-law.com
UNITED STATES: Faces Jomaa Immigration Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States
Department of Homeland Security, et al. The case is captioned as
Ghiwa Jomaa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. United States Department of Homeland Security; United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency; Chad F. Wolf, in
his official capacity as Acting Director of the United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Matthew T. Albence, Case
No. 2:20-cv-06221-MWF-AFM (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2020).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Immigration Actions.
Homeland Security is operated by the U.S. federal government with
responsibilities in public security, roughly comparable to the
interior or home ministries of other countries. The U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a federal law enforcement
agency under Homeland Security. ICE's stated mission is to protect
America from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that
threaten national security and public safety.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan Hu, Esq.
ABUSHARAR AND ASSOCIATES
501 North Brookhurst Street, Suite 202
Anaheim, CA 92801
Telephone: (714) 535-5600
E-mail: associate2@abushararlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
OIL-DCS TRIAL ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 353-8806
E-mail: oil-dcs.cacd@usdoj.gov
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Fails to Issue Refunds, Swartz Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carly Swartz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, Case No. 2:20-cv-03691-NIQA
(E.D. Pa., July 29, 2020), is brought as a result of the
Defendant's decision not to issue appropriate refunds for the
Spring 2020 semester after canceling in-person classes and changing
all classes to an online/remote format, closing most campus
buildings, and requiring all students, who could leave campus to
leave as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease.
This decision deprived the Plaintiff and the other members of the
Class from recognizing the benefits of on-campus enrollment, access
to campus facilities, student activities, and other benefits and
services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and
tuition, the Plaintiff contends.
The Defendants have either refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, fees and other costs that it failed to provide during the
Spring 2020 semester or has provided inadequate and/or arbitrary
reimbursement that does not fully compensate the Plaintiff and
members of the Class for their loss, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a student enrolled at University of Pittsburgh
during the spring 2020 term.
University of Pittsburgh is an institution of higher learning
located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart A. Carper, Esq.
CARPEY LAW, P.C.
600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Phone: (610) 834-6030
Email: scarpey@carpeylaw.com
- and -
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
UXIN LIMITED: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Uxin Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2020, for the
transition period from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend two putative securities class action
suits brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly
suffered damages as a result of alleged misstatements and omissions
in certain disclosure documents in connection with the company's
initial public offering in June 2018.
The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in two putative securities
class actions.
Both cases were purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons
who allegedly suffered damages as a result of alleged misstatements
and omissions in certain disclosure documents in connection with
the company's initial public offering in June 2018.
The first case, In re Uxin Limited Securities Litigation, Index No.
650427/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.), consolidated six complaints filed
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in January 2019.
A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in August 5, 2019, and
on March 9, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
company's motion to dismiss.
Both Uxin and Plaintiffs appealed the Court's decision and those
appeals are in the process of being briefed. The parties also have
commenced discovery.
The second case, Machniewicz v. Uxin Limited et al, Case No.
1:19-cv-00822 (E.D.N.Y.), was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 11, 2019.
On April 24, 2020, the company completed briefing on a motion to
dismiss, which remains pending before the Court.
The actions otherwise remain in their preliminary stages.
Uxin Limited, an investment holding company, operates a used car
e-commerce platform in China. Uxin Limited was founded in 2011 and
is headquartered in Beijing, China.
VERRICA PHARMA Schall Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Verrica
Pharmaceuticals Inc. for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September
16, 2019 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 14, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Verrica's proprietary applicator for
VP-102 posed safety risks to patients if the instructions were not
followed exactly. Based on this risk, the Company built additional
user features into the applicator. The applicator change would, in
turn, require additional testing and supportive data. This
additional work was likely to delay the regulatory approval of
VP-102. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were
false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When
the market learned the truth about Verrica, 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. [GN]
VITAS HOSPICE: Eisenacher Negligence Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA EISENACHER, on
behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees v. VITAS HOSPICE
SERVICES, L.L.C.; VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA; VITAS
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100; inclusive, Case No.
RG20065278 (Filed June 16, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July
23, 2020.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-04948 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for public
nuisance; representative action for civil penalties pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code; violations of Business &
Professions Code; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
negligence.
The Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the Defendants actions,
she suffered economic damages, including lost wages and benefits,
as well as mental, emotional, and/or physical distress.
VITAS provides medical services.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John F. Baum, Esq.
Anna T. Pham, Esq.
Michelle C. Freeman, Esq.
HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP
456 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94104-1255
Telephone: (415) 835-9000
Facsimile: (415) 834-0443
E-mail: jbaum@hkemploymentlaw.com
apham@hkemploymentlaw.com
mfreeman@hkemploymentlaw.com
- and -
Reed E. Schaper, Esq.
HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP
233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 255-0705
Facsimile: (310) 255-0986
E-mail: rschaper@hkemploymentlaw.com
VITOL INC: Kolesnikow Suit Asserts Gas Price-fixing
---------------------------------------------------
Rama Kolesnikow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vitol Inc., SK Energy Americas, Inc. and SK
Trading International Co., Ltd., David Niemann and Brad Lucas,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04101, (N.D. Cal., June 19, 2020), seeks
relief under state antitrust and consumer protection laws including
to violations of the Cartwright Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law.
In February 2015, an explosion damaged an oil refinery complex in
Torrance, California thus causing an unexpected undersupply of
refined gasoline. Vitol, SK Energy Americas and SK Trading
International negotiated large contracts to supply gasoline and
gasoline blending components for delivery in California in excess
of more than 10 million gallons.
Kolesnikow purchased fuel at retail in California during the said
period. He claims that Vitol and SK manipulated the spot market
price for gasoline for profit. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Eustace de Saint Phalle, Esq.
Rains Lucia Stern, esq.
ST. PHALLE & SILVER, PC
2300 Contra Costa Blvd.
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Tel. (415) 341-9341
Fax: (925) 609-1690
Email: edesaintphalle@rlslawyers.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette St
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Tel. (610) 234-6487
Fax: (224) 632-4521
Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
kjustice@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
Robert J. Wozniak, Jr., Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
2201 Waukegan Rd, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Tel. (224) 632-45003
Fax: (224) 632-4521
Email: dmillent@fklmlaw.com
rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
WENCO ASHLAND: Managers Class in Adams Suit Conditionally Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON ADAMS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WENCO ASHLAND, INC., WENCO AKRON LLC, WENCO
INDIANA LLC, WENCO MANAGEMENT LLC, and) WENCO WOOSTER, INC. d/b/a)
WENCO WENDY'S, Defendants, Case No. 1:19CV1544 (N.D. Ohio),
Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the proposed
Collective.
The Defendants operate Wendy's stores. Plaintiff Jason Adams
worked as an assistant general manager (AGM) for the Defendants'
Wendy's store in Ashland, Ohio, from June to December 2018.
Plaintiff commenced the complaint alleging that the Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act.
Under the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
certification and court-authorized notice.
In support of his motion, the Plaintiff provided a declaration
detailing his experiences and observations while working for the
Defendants, several job postings from some of Wenco Wendy's
locations, company policy documents, and the Defendants' admissions
from its Answer.
In addition, the Plaintiff supports its motion with Defendants'
admission from its Answer. The Defendants admitted that they
required the Plaintiff and other AGMs to work more than 40 hours
per workweek and did not pay them overtime compensation for hours
worked beyond 40 hours in any workweek. The Plaintiffs also refer
to certain statements from Defendants to show that Wenco Akron,
Wenco Indiana, Wenco Wooster apply the same overtime compensation
policies, practices, and procedures to all AGMs at each of its
locations.
The Plaintiff further provided job postings for AGM positions in
Bluffton, Mishawaka (McKinley Ave) (dated mid-September 2018);
Restaurant Manager positions in Columbia City, Dalton (dated
mid-September 2018); and a general Assistant General Manager and
General Manager position in both Chapel Ridge (Fort Wayne, IN) and
Macedonia, OH (both dated March 27, 2019). Except for the latter
two postings from 2019, these job postings appear to be virtually
identical.
The Defendants attack the strength of the job postings in several
ways, including the specific duties requiring certain managerial
functions that would support an exempt FLSA classification. They
also contend that the job duties in the postings are not specific
enough to ascertain AGMs' or Regional Managers' ("RMs") day-to-day
activities, such that they support a finding that all AGMs and RMs
employed by all five Defendants in all 64 restaurants primarily
perform non-exempt job duties.
Based upon the information provided in the Plaintiff's sworn
declaration, the job postings, the company policy documents, and
the Defendants' admissions, the Plaintiff seeks to conditionally
certify a class of Assistant General Managers and other
similarly-situated employees, such as exempt Restaurant Managers
("AGMs").
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's supporting documents do
not fulfill the lenient standard of proof required at the
conditional certification stage. They challenge the Plaintiff's
lack of personal knowledge about other AGMs' and RMs' experiences
and claims that the Plaintiff failed to make a "modest factual
showing" that he is similarly situated to the putative collective
members
On review, Judge Limbert finds that the Plaintiff's declaration
provided personal observations of his own experience at three
locations, his observations of at least one other AGM who had
similar work experiences as the Plaintiff, his observations of
company policy at play, and statements about the AGM position
generally from his District Manager ("DM"). At the very least, the
Plaintiff' declaration supports his theory that he has personal
knowledge that other AGMs at the three locations where he worked
and AGMs at the five or six restaurants that DM Rice oversaw are
similarly situated to him.
The Plaintiff's declaration also supports the theory that the
Defendants had a common policy and operation at all of its
locations and that AGMs at such locations generally had the same or
similar job duties. His declaration is complemented by the company
documents and job postings that the Plaintiff provided as well as
the Defendants' own admissions that it had employed the same
overtime compensation policies, practices, and procedures to the
Plaintiff and other AGMs.
While each of the Plaintiff's supporting exhibits, alone, may be
too weak to grant conditional certification, the totality of the
evidence supports authorizing conditional certification, the Court
opines. The Court finds the Plaintiff's arguments to be both
logical and persuasive.
While both parties discuss particular aspects of the Plaintiff's
and putative members' job duties, the Court finds the argument is
somewhat premature. Although the case centers on whether the
Defendants properly classified the Plaintiff (and other AGMs and
RMs) as exempt from FLSA's overtime compensation requirement, the
issue at this stage is whether the Plaintiff has shown that his
position is similar to other putative class members. The Plaintiff
appears primarily to have provided the job postings to show general
uniformity in the AGM position across its locations and,
consequently, to show that the Plaintiff and other AGMs are
similarly situated for conditional certification purposes. Whether
or not the Plaintiff(s) actually qualify as exempt or non-exempt
under the FLSA is the ultimate issue in the case and will center on
the details of the AGM and RM job duties.
The Defendants maintain that, in the event of conditional
certification, the Court should revise the Plaintiff's proposed
Notice of Suit. They request that the Court revise the Notice to
correct the statute of limitation period for the opt-in Plaintiffs,
to more narrowly define the class, to limit the op-in period to 45
days rather than the proposed 90 days, and to eliminate the need
for a Reminder Notice.
The statute of limitations in an FLSA collective action continues
to run for an opt-in Plaintiff until the opt-in Plaintiff files a
written consent to join the action. Judge Limbert orders that the
Notice of Suit be limited to the three years prior to the date the
complaint was filed, which is July 8, 2016, to the present.
However, in so ruling, the Judge is not determining whether such
potential Plaintiffs who may receive Notice of the suit have
successfully opted in within the applicable statute of limitations
period.
Judge Limbert also agrees with the Defendant's revisions except for
the language pertaining to a legal conclusion ("who were
misclassified as exempt employees"). The Judge rules the class
definition should be amended to define the class as: All Assistant
General Managers or salaried Restaurant Managers who worked for
Wenco Wendy's between July 8, 2016 and the present and who were not
paid one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks.
The Defendants further object to the length of the proposed opt-in
period of 90 days. Since the Plaintiff has provided sufficient
support and the Court finds no evidence of an otherwise
impermissible or unnecessary delay in litigation, Judge Limbert
grants the Plaintiff's request for a 90-day opt-in period.
Finally, the Judge approves the Plaintiff's request to send a
reminder notice halfway through the opt-in period to all the
potential Plaintiffs of the conditionally certified class that have
not opted in to the litigation at the time the reminder notice is
sent.
In conclusion, Judge Limbert granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of the proposed Collective to the extent
described in his Opinion and Order. It is a conditional
certification subject to later review after completion of
significant discovery. Later review may include Court action to
either expand or limit the certification as appropriate.
The Court approved of the Plaintiff's Consent to Join form and
Reminder Notice, as written. The Defendants did not contest the
substance of such forms and the Court finds no error within them.
In addition, the Defendants are ordered to produce to the Plaintiff
within 14 days from the date of the Opinion and Order, a
computer-readable list of the known names, last known mailing
addresses, last known telephone numbers, last known personal and
work email addresses, last four digits of Social Security numbers
(for notice that are returned undeliverable), and work locations
for all Collective Members.
A full-text copy of the District Court's May 22, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/wLyW3i from
Leagle.com.
WEST VIRGINIA: Baxley Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN BAXLEY, et al., v. BETSY
JIVIDEN, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01526 (S.D. W.Va.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying a Plaintiff class for declaratory and
injunctive relief, defined as follows:
"all persons who are, or who will be, admitted to a jail
in West Virginia";
2. certifying a Plaintiff subclass for declaratory and
injunctive relief, defined as follows:
"all persons who are, or who will be, admitted to a jail
in West Virginia who meet the definition of being a
"qualified individual with a disability" under the
Americans with Disabilities Act."
The Plaintiffs bring this action to address widespread, systemic
failures by the Defendants to provide adequate and timely medical
and mental health treatment to inmates in West Virginia Division of
Corrections & Rehabilitation's jail facilities.
WVDCR offers offender services, victims services, juvenile
services, and correctional industries.[CC]
John Baxley, Jr., Earl Edmondson, Joshua Hall, Donna Wells-Wright,
Heather Reed, and Danny Spiker, Jr.,S on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, are represented by:
Lydia C. Milnes, Esq.
Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq.
Rachel J. Kincaid, Esq.
MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.
325 Willey Street
Morgantown, WV 26505
Telephone: (304) 326-0188
Facsimile: (304) 326-0189
E-mail: lydia@msjlaw.org
jennifer@msjlaw.org
rkincaid@msjlaw.org
WINS FINANCE: Kamau Sues Over 6.1% Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL KAMAU, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. WINS FINANCE HOLDINGS INC., RENHUI MU, and
JUNFENG ZHAO, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06656 (C.D. Cal., July
24, 2020) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Wins securities between October 31, 2018 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 Company and certain of its top officials.
According to the complaint, on May 26, 2020, Wins issued a press
release announcing that the Company received a delisting
determination letter from Nasdaq. The press release stated, in
relevant part, "[a]s disclosed previously, the Company is working
assiduously to complete its delinquent filing with SEC and to
regain compliance with the Nasdaq listing rule as soon as
possible."
The Company's undisclosed ongoing financial difficulties-including
nonrepayment of the Guohong Loan-and material control weaknesses
came to a head on June 30, 2020, when CZD resigned as the Company's
independent auditor after less than three years in that role.
On this news, Wins's stock price fell $2.06 per share, or 6.1%, to
close at $31.70 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 Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Plaintiff acquired Wins securities at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the
alleged corrective disclosures.
Wins Finance Holdings Inc. provides financing solutions for small
and medium enterprises in the People's Republic of China. Wins is a
Cayman Islands company headquartered in Beijing, the People's
Republic of China.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
YELP INC: Violates Labor Code by Not Paying All Wages, Leon Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Leon, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Yelp, Inc.; and Does 1 through 25, Case No. RG20067743
(Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., July 15, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and proposed class
members all their earned wages, in violation of the California
Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order.
According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to
properly record the hours class members worked and compensate
employees for this time, including all non-overtime and overtime
pay (including due to its rounding and other policies). Class
Members performed work before their scheduled shifts, during meal
periods, and after their schedules shifts for which they were not
paid an hourly wage. The Defendants ignored electronic data that
would have revealed Class Members were working off the clock hours
they were not being compensated for. As a result, the Defendants
failed to fully compensate Class Members for all wages, including
minimum wages earned.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from January 2018 until December 2018.
Yelp is an American public company headquartered in San Francisco,
California. The Company develops, hosts, and markets the Yelp.com
website and the Yelp mobile app, which publish crowd-sourced
reviews about businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Zachary Gershman, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 358-7046
Facsimile: (310) 820-1258
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
Zachary@lebelaw.com
- and -
Jerusalem Beligan, Esq.
Ian Silvers, Esq.
BISNAR CHASE, LLP
1301 Dove St., No. 120
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 752-2999
Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
E-mail: Jbeligan@bisnarchase.com
Isilvers@bisnarchase.com
ZOOSK INC: Flores-Mendez et al. Sue Over Data Theft
---------------------------------------------------
JUAN FLORES-MENDEZ and AMBER COLLINS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZOOSK, INC. and SPARK
NETWORKS SE, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-04929-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
July 22, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence and violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act
and California's Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated consumers, allege that the Defendants
disregarded their privacy rights by, among other things, (i)
failing to implement reasonable security safeguards to prevent or
timely detect the data breach in Zoosk's system which led to
unauthorized access of customers' personally identifiable
information (PII); (ii) failing to disclose to customers that it
did not implement such reasonable security safeguards; and (iii)
failing to provide sufficiently prompt, thorough, and accurate
notice and information concerning the data breach. Zoosk sent a
Notice of Data Security Event via email to affected customers on
May 28, 2020 informing them that the PII subjected to unauthorized
access and exfiltration, theft or disclosure in the data breach
includes customers' unencrypted and unredacted name, and (ii) an
email address that serves as an account login/account number, and
(iii) password (although not confirmed at the time of the notice).
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiffs and the Class
members have been injured in several ways including, but not
limited to: (i) now know or should know that their PII was hacked
and put up for sale on the dark web for purchase by malicious
actors; (ii) face an imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft
and similar cybercrimes; (iii) have expended and will continue to
expend time and money to protect against cybercrimes; (iv) have
lost value in their PII; and (v) did not receive the benefit of
their bargain with the Defendants regarding data privacy.
Zoosk, Inc. is an online data company with a principal place of
business located in San Francisco, California.
Spark Networks SE is an operator of online dating sites with its
principal office located at Kohlfurter Straße 41/43 Berlin 10999,
Germany. It is the parent company of Zoosk, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit A. King, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
- and –
Robert N. Fisher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
477 Madison Avenue, Suite 6000
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
E-mail: rfisher@bradleygrombacher.com
[*] Cryptocurrency Entrepreneurs to Sue Google, Facebook, Twitter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Mail reports that Cryptocurrency entrepreneurs are preparing
to sue Google, Facebook and Twitter in an Australian class action
lawsuit that could cost the tech giants up to US$300 billion (A$436
billion).
The David-and-Goliath case has attracted litigants with
US$600million (A$872million) worth of claims so far--a number that
has increased as more people join.
The no-win no-fee case has now been put before a senior barrister
for review, pending funding to file.
The companies and individuals, represented by Sydney-based firm JPB
Liberty, say their businesses were harmed when Google, Facebook and
Twitter all banned cryptocurrency advertising in 2018.
The social media giants acted within weeks of each other, and
included the ban in their terms and conditions of service.
Google announced it would partially reverse the sweeping ban in
September of 2018, to allow regulated exchanges to buy ads in the
US and Japan.
Facebook said in 2019 it would no longer require pre-approval for
ads related to blockchain technology, also caught up in the ban,
however those advertising cryptocurrency would still have to go
through a review.
Australia's Moneysmart government website warns of people losing
their money in speculative cryptocurrency initial coin offerings on
unregulated exchanges, saying many have turned out to be scams.
Other cryptocurrencies, most famously Bitcoin, have turned into
widely used products useful for moving money across borders, while
the blockchain technology that underpins it is revolutionising data
security.
The entrepreneurs say there were very few regulated exchanges in
2018 so the social media advertising ban hurt their legitimate
business growth as they were prevented from using the world's
largest online advertising platforms to reach potential customers.
JPB Liberty is organising funding for the case from institutional
litigation funders, venture capital and ideologically aligned
investors.
Claimants will get 70 percent of any eventual settlement or damages
while the funders will get 30 percent.
Brian Bishko, JPB Liberty's Israeli-based Vice President of
Technology & Public Affairs, and himself a conservative blogger,
said the social media giants had become too large.
'I think Facebook is too powerful to exist in the world--I honestly
think it's a danger to the world,' he said.
Dr. Bishko said the ban on cryptocurrency advertising was also
crushing new social media networks that run on blockchains such as
Hive which pays content creators in its own Hive cryptocurrency.
'Hive, which back then was called Steem, had been growing and
growing--and suddenly they couldn't advertise on Facebook and get
new users,' he said.
'It caused enormous damage.'
'If your business had as a component of it anything that looked
like a cryptocurrency, you got caught in the same net.
'So maybe you'd get a few adverts but eventually they'd do a review
and your account would be blocked.'
These new emerging social media platforms that use blockchain
technology are a threat to YouTube and Facebook, Dr. Bishko said.
Once a content creator puts a post up on Hive, it can't be taken
down as it is on the blockchain--and the decentralised system
cannot be controlled.
'It's like there's a power to it, it's decentralised, it's not
controlled by a central authority called 'Mark Zuckerberg',' he
said.
By contrast the big four social media giants own all content posted
to their platforms and can censor or delete at will.
'You don't own your stuff when you post it on Facebook, you don't
own it on Twitter--your account can be taken away,' said Dr Bishko.
The social media giants cannot be held accountable for the content
on their platforms due to a US legal protection that deems them to
be a platform not a publisher, however they are increasingly making
editorial decisions over what content they will host.
They may delete or demonetise accounts, and ban or deplatform
people and businesses who make their living on social media with
ideas that Silicon Valley disagrees with.
Google Ads recently demonetised finance and free speech website
ZeroHedge.com on June 16 for racist content that stemmed from
unmoderated comments beneath the site's articles.
Google and Facebook combined accounted for 60.9 percent of all US
digital ad spending in 2019 according to digital advertising
projections by eMarketer.com in October last year.
The pair also dominated the UK with a combined share of digital
advertising revenue of 63.3 percent in 2019, according to
eMarketer's forecast.
Google was projected to take 38.8 percent of the 2019 UK market
worth GBP5.72 billion, while Facebook would account for 24.5
percent or GBP3.62 billion.
Google's parent company Alphabet also owns YouTube and thus
controls the advertising on that platform also.
Together with Twitter, the social media giants control the majority
of online advertising platforms in the English speaking world.
Daily Mail Australia has contacted Google, Facebook and Twitter for
a response. [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 ***